The Not-So-Right Reverend Rick

I don’t really have a problem with Obama asking Reverend Rick to give a prayer at the Inauguration. I am not religious and therefore do not listen to people like Reverend Rick who claim to know who is destined for hell. If all of the people Rick says are going to hell, then heaven is going to be a very boring place.

If it causes evangelicals to say, “Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,” it’s worth it.

Not. Going. To. Happen. Ever.

Can you get Rick to send over some water and donuts? I’m kinda of hungry right now. Thanks.

Exactly. Joe in this post and kathy in the other thread articulated the savvy of this gesture quite insightfully.

Never say never. Obama was never going to be elected, according to some. Minds and hearts can shift in incremental bits. Young evangelicals are part of that shift away from demonization.

I’m kinda pissed at my fellow liberals for bellyaching, actually. See, we’re the inclusive ones, not the doctrinaire ones.

Don’t worry Joe…there is no heaven to be barred from. We live in a multi dimensional multiverse in which myriad instances of you exist and you will live each and every one of all your possible histories within those universes, just like an electron. There I said it.
.
I for one don’t recall gays running around demonizing Christians and that didn’t seem to stop Christians from demonizing them. This is much ado about nothing, but again, if Obama doesn’t come through w/ real policy that might benefit the gay community, they will turn on him big time. I think the tipping point has been reached w/ them, they ain’t havin’ it anymore.

President Obama’s Inauguration will come and it will go. We have bigger fish to fry.

That’s about how I view the politics, although as a Buddhist I’d debate even the basic concept of “going” to hell. But not here. Good column. Thanks, Joe.

Mr. Klein, I think there must have been some miscommunication regarding the Jews and hell. Maybe you didn’t hear the actual question. Ask Reverend Warren to interpret Romans 11:25-36 for you. If he confirms your damnation, I for one (and maybe you too) would really like to know how he interprets that passage.

Joe first.
.
Here’s my absolutely sincere, absolutely serious question. You’ve met these people. Talked to them. People like Rick Warren can’t develop an effective business model without a firm grasp of reality. A firm grasp of reality does not permit the idea of “hell.” Jews in it, or otherwise. “heaven” or “The Rapture” is also problematic.
.
Now if anybody is not a huckster (in this crowd–PastorDan is no huckster, nor are my many episcopalian priest acquaintances), it’s Rick Warren. He gives an enormous fraction of his earnings away. He’s not in this, as so many of them are, to make money from fomenting people’s ignorance.
.
So, Joe, my question is, does Rick Warren actually believe in Hell? Does he really believe that God has decided that Jews and other infidels will burn forever? (South Park decided that Mormon was the correct answer.) Heck, does he even believe in forever? There are people studying this. While they’re not making much progress, they’re trying. Is his (and, again, I’m serious) view really that our understanding of the universe should be driven by illiterate goat herders?
.
Does he really believe in Hell? Does he really believe in Heaven? Where the eff does he think those places are?
.
For Obama worriers.
.
Joe is right. This is cheap at the price. He uses Warren for the invocation. He says I listened to all views, and then he follows his own agenda. There’s no downside to this for him politically. And the effect is to drive a wedge (which he wants to do) between the Beatitude Christians, and the Leviticus “Christians.”

postxian- If you’re going to automatically dismiss the evangelicals as having no redeeming virtue or possibility of being good, how are you better than Jerry Falwell or James Dobson? Really, this isn’t that big a deal. Oh, and just BTW, I’m an Evangelical, and I’m fine with abortion, and gay marriage, and I’m (literally) a card-carrying member of the ACLU. Don’t lump all Evangelicals into one group, please.

“Savvy gestures” have a way of coming back to bite you.

In the short run this benefits Obama in ways many of the people here outlined. In the long run, setting up someone like Warren to take over Billy Graham’s role as sort of “The nation’s minister,” with all the gravitas that position has, has the possibility of making Warren some kind of ultimate moral authority — and many of his moral views are, to put it bluntly, repugnant. Why take that risk? Why continue legitimizing and giving moral credibility to someone like Warren, when there are plenty of other religious people out there who aren’t so right wing? There are other ways to “bring people together” besides leaving a barrel of gasoline besides the fire of the culture wars, which is exactly what Obama’s done here. Maybe this will all work out fine, be a non-event as Joe predicts. But this is not a gimme — there is a potential downside here, maybe a big one. It’s a risk I’d rather Obama, so cautious in every other way, hadn’t taken, and the fact that the cautious Obama took it suggests to me he (like Joe) doesn’t see it as a risk — and that worries me.

Inviting Rick Warren to deliver a prayer at his Inauguration does not mean Obama is going to turn Warren into the next Billy Graham Presidential Minister. That, to me, is not a risk. Warren is already a household name–Obama isn’t really legitimizing him. We will have far more things to worry about come January 21.

Here’s my problem with Rick Warren. It’s not so much that he opposes marriage equality and unfettered access to health care for women. It’s that the way that he makes those arguments is abusive, demeaning to his opponents, and frequently dishonest. In defending the selection of Obama brought out his “we can disagree without being disagreeable” line. This is a very reasonable bar, under which Rick Warren passes with room to spare, pretty much every time he opens his mouth on conservative social issues.

He was a major proponent of the falsehood that defeat of CA’s Prop 8 would have forced clergy people to perform same-sex marriages that they opposed, even though the CA Supreme Court decision that would have been left in place by Prop 8′s defeat specfically excludes such an outcome. He went further, suggesting that defeat of Prop 8 would place legal obstructions on his First Amendment right to vocally oppose gay marriage. He equates gay marriage with the prospect of incestuous marriage and pedophilic marriage. His discourse is divisive, not conciliatory, and highly disagreeable. Perhaps marginally less so than Fred Phelps or James Dobson (the latter of which he concedes to having no major theological differences with), but beyond the pale nonetheless.

I think that Obama could have achieved much of the positive effect that Klein ascribes to the Warren invitation with a different person.

I think he had to stay away from California. The wounds from Prop 8 are way too raw among an important Obama constituency that worked hard to see him elected to have anyone who spoke or acted on behalf of Prop 8, even earnestly and honestly, be present. Especially considering that Obama’s opposition was muted, and that his words were used by proponents of the measure.

But a socially conservative pastor, who isn’t so punitive with rhetoric towards opponents, would still have raised some hackles among Obama supporters without bringing on justified screams of outrage.

Mgale — why do you jump to the conclusion that this one gesture is tantamount to being billy graham’s replacement? The problem is not Rick Warren the problem is not taking Obama at this word that he intended to include everyone at the table. Tolerance does not mean including only people who respect everyone it means including people you do not agree with. This propensity for some on the left to have a tizzy fit every time Obama doesn’t follow left wing orthodoxy isn’t much different than what the right wing was doing. If you want change well that’s where it has got to start.

Sorry this is only a big deal, because the media is making it a big deal. Joe, can’t you speak about Madoff…he’s a bigger issue on our lives than Rick Warren ever will be. I’m another Jew who’s going to hell…but at least I’ll be in good company.

If it causes evangelicals to say, “Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,” it’s worth it.
.
Ha! Ha! You realize you’re talking about a group of people whose primary goal is to initiate Armageddon so they can Rapture up to Heaven? (Why do you think all the obsessing over Israel?)
.
And I know I’m painting with a broad, broad brush here (sorry, pattonmat), but from where I stand this is what a good chunk of the evangelical population looks like.

Argh. At #15, please insert “Warren,” between “the selection of” and “Obama” in first graf. Sorry, thanks.

Just so we’re clear Cliff that the left has to watch our own tendency to put people in a box: a good chunk of the population that consider themselves fundamentalists, born-again or evangelicals look like African Americans who by the way drew a great deal of ire from the gay community (who reverted to name calling using the N word without skipping a beat)for their support of prop 8, should Obama distance himself from them as well? — Just asking?

I see a lot of people apologizing for Obama but the point here is very clear. He knew this would PO the LGBT community and he did it anyway. He really does intend to benefit from pissing off the DFH’s in order to gain more credibility with the villagers and, as someone pointed out, the younger not-so-wingnutty evangelicals.

I personally don’t care too much about Warren but Obama has just slappped down an important part of his constiuency and he did it with full deliberation.

I didn’t say it was “tantamount to being Billy Graham’s replacement.” But it does set him up to assume that mantle. Why do it? As I said, there are many other people who could have given the invocation who aren’t slightly watered-down versions of Pat Robertson, which Warren is. If Obama felt it necessary to “invite him to the table,” there are a lot of seats there besides the one at the head. And there are a lot of ways to be “tolerant” without further legitimizing someone like Warren, whose very intolerance is the problem here. Obama had the opportunity to elevate someone in the religious community of more moderate — and tolerant — views than Warren to a position of prominence, and he chose not to do that. In my book that’s a missed opportunity to move the goalposts on the culture wars a little to the left, and in this particular area Obama won’t have many such opportunities — people like the ever-growing-in-stature Warren will see to that.

I recognize that some of you are consumed with Obama uber alles syndrome, but you’re going to have to learn to accept the remote possibility that Obama can f u c k up just like other mortals. When that happens, which I think he might have here (we won’t know for years), pointing it out isn’t some act of disloyalty. It might even help Obama — and God knows, he needs the help.

I basically agree, but barack, please, please, please don’t be an idiot.

Recommended: N. T. Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” – a mainline theologian’s reflection on what the New Testament actually says about heaven. You might be surprised.

Rick Warren is a supercessionist exceptionalist: the mantle of “Chosen People” has been shifted, by God’s providence (supercession), from Israel to the U S of A, the greatest nation in the history of the world (exceptionalism).

I’m shocked – shocked, I tell you! – that he would be so vulgar as to say out loud in a secularist citadel like Aspen that Jews are going to hell. Christ-killers and f*ggot-lovers already know who they are and where they’re going. It’s Warren’s job to prove himself one of the elect by being big enough to provide (with a smile!) donuts for their journey.

I think Rick Warren is more in the Falwell strain than the Graham strain, not that I’m real fond of either.

Andy: Sorry this is only a big deal, because the media is making it a big deal. No, this is a big deal because people like John Aravosis are apoplectic about it: Markos on Obama and Warren.
.
On the other hand, it appears that THE OTHER SIDE ISN’T HAPPY EITHER.
.
It pays at moments like this to remember that Warren invited Obama to an AIDS conference at his church, absolutely infuriating many people on the right in the process, including many in his congregation. Obama went, and was received after his talk with a standing ovation.
.
Both of these guys push against societal envelopes and, as much as I disagree with Warren’s sometimes toxic beliefs, we are all the better for their interest in expanding closed, even rapturous minds.
.
Speaking of which – AN OPENLY GAY MAN AS SECRETARY OF THE NAVY?
.
BTW, with the Warren thing getting everyone’s attention, I think it is worth listening again to the last three minutes of today’s press conference, where Obama talks about societal values. Bracing, powerful stuff. (I can’t seem to find the video on MSNBC).

Oh, how I wish I could get my paragraph separators back!

I should also say, although it’s fine to invite Warren, it’s also fine for the left to gripe about it. Obama will only be able to implement change if he knows we’ll hold his feet to the fire.

Obama can be nice, but people need to know there are a lot of people mad as hell, and not going to be played for suckers.

One of the major problems of the past sixteen years has been there weren’t any liberals willing to raise their voices.

Hey pattonmatt
.
Great to have you here. So you do literally believe that Jews go to hell, they burn for eternity?

And… I see nothing wrong, in the right circumstances, with reaching out to pro-slavery folks after the Civil War.

@ mgale and wvng – I think you’re absolutely on point about Obama.
.
Inviting Warren was approximately the least important thing he’s done today – but oh, boy, it’s like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Let him speak. And let’s not hear any complaints when the audience turn their backs, or boo, or respond in any way they like.

Paul D -
.
I don’t think Obama’s going to be deterred by the outrage of followers or opponents. But I think he is going to listen to ideas for solutions.

Joe – very well said. You might find the thread under Sullivan’s post interesting too.

The Once-Right-in-a-Lifetime Reverend Joe Klein has finally gotten a something correct: “I have no problem with Barack Obama asking Reverend Rick to deliver a prayer at the Inauguration. It will have zero–repeat, zero–impact on the policies of the Obama Administration.” Obama’s policies will all be entirely in keeping with the agenda of the fundamentalist homosexualists and every other element of the Democrat party base, to wit: the pagans, the atheists, the Marxists, the socialists, the race baiters, the race hustlers, the tree huggers, the earth worshippers, the flag burners, the draft dodgers and what the pro-America community calls: your general issue America haters.

hahahahahahahahaha

[pointing]

pointing and laughing
.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

jay, drat, you beat me to it.

So in other words Obama is our president and he damn well ought to act like it. Please, dogma is dogma. There is no more supportive constituency for Obama than African Americans (yes even more supportive than gays), and many of them share Warren’s position on Gay marriage should Obama distance himself from them as well?
.
The theme of this historic inauguration is America is in trouble and we need all hands on deck. And if we are going to reach out across the aisle we are going to find people there with views we find objectionable.
.
If we are ever going to bring this country along to a point that gay rights is a given we are going to need more than just those on the left who support that idea. We are also going to have to convert some of those on the right and perhaps this is just the olive branch that can get us closer to that day. If Mandela can get the president of apartheid South Africa to see the error of his ways perhaps Obama can impact the beliefs of Warren and if that happened how silly this uproar would seem then.

Jayack – I have a cousin who is dying of cancer, and her mother is frantic because her daughter has not accepted Jesus and is therefore going to hell. It would be a mistake to think that most Evangelists want Jews, or anybody else, to go to hell. They just think those are the rules. Many of them are afraid that they, too, will be found to have not measured up and will go to hell. Though most Christians no longer see heaven and hell this way, and no longer believe that a loving God is toting up a ledger to see who “gets in,” this was the predominant view throughout most of 2000 years of Christianity. It inevitably involves fear of God, but doesn’t necessarily include hatred of the excluded. Most of Rick Warren’s congregation thinks Obama is headed off to hell too, and for all I know Warren agrees with them.

If it causes evangelicals to say, “Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,” it’s worth it.

A small point: has a Democratic president demonized evangelicals? Clinton wore his religion on his sleeve and was always making overtures… heck, the Clintons made friends with Murdoch and Scaif, for Christ’s sakes. Those people would schmooze anybody.

The victimization is more a necessity for their politics than a reality. Overtures to evangelicals is nothing new for Dems.

Dee in Columbia: Like I said, I was painting with a broad, broad brush. I know plenty of Protestants who don’t feel that way, or at least don’t beat me about the head and shoulders with it.
.
But the people Joe is referring to, and the people in our society I worry about the most, do feel this way. And I don’t see them compromising any time soon.

kathy,
.
My question is not whether the suckers believe this. My question is whether the hucksters do, in particular, whether Rick Warren does. My claim is that to be sufficiently engaged with reality to become this successful in the material world is inconsistent with sincerely believing there is, for example, a hell. It’s not even possible to answer the third grader questions about hell, and make any sense at all.
.
There’s no way, for example, that Jimmy Swaggart actually believed in Hell and eternal damnation.

You know, if the left wasn’t making such a stink about this, I would really be enjoying the conniption the right is having because Warren is praying for God’s blessing on Obama.

If this was the Nazi era and I was of Jewish descent and a president elect chose a vocal anti Jewish Nazi sympathizer to participate in his inaguration; how should I feel. Obama’s lack of sensitivity and outright pandering with overtures to conservative extremists only says to the gay community that Obama tolerates their claims of equating gay men and women with pedofiles and gay marriage rights as a slippery slope to beastiality. Quiet desperation, stunned into a rage of betrayal is how the gay community finds itself. First Obama’s betrayal on FISA, then his Pelosi/Reid like capitulation to Lieberman coupled with his continuation of obvious right of center choices for his cabinet and the choice of this bigot homophobe to participate in his inaguration; only demonstrates what many in the gay community feared all along, Obama is showing his true Christian Black Homophobe roots.
This president is not a friend of the gay community. His selection of Rick Warren is tantamount to condoning racism.

nibbly: You know, if the left wasn’t making such a stink about this, I would really be enjoying the conniption the right is having because Warren is praying for God’s blessing on Obama. Assuming he does. Wouldn’t it be a kick in the head if he pulled a “Gawd Damn Him” switch?

I also think it’s a political mistake. I realize that he is trying to drive a wedge between the evangelicals who believe in Leviticus and those who believe in the Beatitudes.
.
I think he’d be better off with the (female) Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. It’s true that the mainline churches are losing membership to secular humanism, and that this would really piss off the evangelicals. Pissing off the evangelicals is a GOOD thing. You want them to demand control of the party, demand Palin for president, get mad at the corporate cronies that drove the party into the ground.

the agenda of the fundamentalist homosexualists and every other element of the Democrat party base, to wit: the pagans, the atheists, the Marxists, the socialists, the race baiters, the race hustlers, the tree huggers, the earth worshippers, the flag burners, the draft dodgers and what the pro-America community calls: your general issue America haters.
.
And after we get done setting the progressive agenda at our nationwide meeting, we hold a party that is simply off the hook.
.
I’d invite you but no boring-ass fat white guys are allowed.

Jay – so do you think that successful people in previous centuries must not have believed this, or do you see this belief as so inconsistent with modern thought that no successful person can believe it now?
.
My guess is that Warren believes this.

Cliff I get it – I’m just trying to remind everyone that African Americans are a very important component and the most loyal member of the Democratic coalition and yet many of them fall into the religious fundamentalist category and on a religious grounds object to a gay rights agenda. When prop 8 passed, the white gay community singled out African Americans and the N-word flew at every black person in the vicinity even black gay protesters. I’m just saying that if the gay community wants to count on this faction of the coalition to support their cause then they should recognize that the path to this group goes right through the black church — Warren may be one path to reach these kinds of church leaders.

An alternative ending that made John Cole laugh out loud:

Jay – It looks as if Obama is already pissing off most of the Evangelicals because Warren accepted. So this has the effect, politically, of further splintering the Evangelicals.

nibbly: You know, if the left wasn’t making such a stink about this, I would really be enjoying the conniption the right is having because Warren is praying for God’s blessing on Obama.

If we didn’t have a conniption, Obama wouldn’t be leaning right enough.

Just try and tell me that Obama is going to listen to actually the troglodytes: * Physicist John Holdren, an international expert on energy and climate, will be Obama’s science adviser.
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2008/12/sources-john-ho.html

Oh, brother, someone whipped out their Nazi comparisons.

Friar Tuck recommended “surprised by hope” by NT Wright. Here’s TIME’s piece about his thoughts on heaven, earlier this year:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html

wvng: Christianist making one time 2-minute prayer vs. real physicist making environmental policy
.
Yup, I feel so betrayed.

“If it causes those folks to give the new President just the slightest credit for appreciating their worldview, if it causes them to give him the benefit of the doubt on controversial stuff like talking to the Iranians or universal health insurance, then it’s worth it. If it causes evangelicals to say, “Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,” it’s worth it.”
.
Perfect. He’s doing this for you Joe, don’t you know?
.
He’s showing you that he’s one of you. No important principle – in this case countenancing naked bigotry and misogynism – is more important than the exclusive principle amongst the elite corporate media: mercenary civility. I have no idea how painful it is for Obama but he’s clearly decided that he’s needed to compromise on FISA and liberal values in general to prove his bona fides to the establishment opinion elite to be able to move his agenda forward. That’s far more a condemnation of you, in the degree that he is correct in their necessity, than it is of him. So far, he looks pretty smart to me.
.
(FYI, not to put too fine a point on it, “appreciating [the] world view” of bigots and misogynists isn’t really a good thing, regardless of whether they like you better.)

Joe, I agree with about half of your blog post. I am not standing at the alter to marry another dude. I have nothing to do with abortion. But in both cases, I by God believe both issues are matters of great import in our democracy, and matters of freedom and equality. So even though I am not in that congregation, I will sure stand up for the issues.
.
About the religion. I am sick of it. Warren sells an especially virulent form of it, and I disagree that his annointing as prayer giver at the secular inaugration holds no meaning. It provides him stature, it gives him entrance to public media, it allows him to sell his books. I would rather all of the religionists just march in the parade, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the Tabernacle Choir, the whole bunch, followed by a flaming gay rights platoon, and then a bunch of pregenant teenagers. Let’s see…who else should march?
.
Obama supporters, including me, have often said that he is not infallible. He has just proven our point. I hope for better thought processes on the issues that are not just emotional garbage.

Warren is seen as a mainstream figure because of his bipartisan ways and his generally moderate infusion of religion into secular formats. I’d bet no one even knows he is a die-hard evangelical on social issues. Obama invited him because it’s safe way to bow to the religious community.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

tonelook:

Here take this valium, cool the jets a bit. Nazis and homophobes.. a little harsh, huh? Just waaaay too much anger tonight. It is a lot easier to change people’s minds when you open discourse and welcome them into your life. Otherwise all they hear are their own voices telling themselves they are right. Progress takes time and hard work. Nothing is easy in life. Society has come a long way in the past 40 years. Most of the younger generation does not care about color or sexual persuasion. It just doesn’t matter to them…. why? Because they let people whether they be white, hispanic, asian, heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian etc. into their life and changed. Rick Warren is part of the CHANGE process championed by President Elect Obama. We can’t change unless we really change. All I can advise you to do is back off and just let change happen.

I’ll get over it eventually. But people telling me to “get over it” actually makes me push back. It’s my right in this country to complain about the politics I don’t like, same as anyone, and I think this stinks.

I think during the Bush years we forgot how to disagree.

[...] All it took was two glasses of wine, and I am ready to have hot gay man on man sex with Joe Klein: [...]

Jay – so do you think that successful people in previous centuries must not have believed this, or do you see this belief as so inconsistent with modern thought that no successful person can believe it now?
.
My guess is that Warren believes this.
.
I think it is very hard to credit the belief in a literal hell, literal heaven from any educated person in the 20th century. I think, if pressed, “Pastors” who profess such literal claims would not answer questions on this issue in a clear way.
.
My guess is,first, that Warren doesn’t believe this, and that, second, nobody will ever call him out on this. It’s not tenable. It’s not consistent with believing that the world is as it is, and the universe is at it is.
.
You can tell more abstract stories, as do the mainline Christian sects that aren’t absolutely ridiculous. But the existence of “Satan” in “Hell” tormenting sinners (that is Jews, Muslims and illiterate pagans as well as all the other people who haven’t stumped up) is ridiculous. Give Dawkins or Hitchens, or, FTM, me, 20 minutes, no holds barred, and it’s over.
.

Jay – It looks as if Obama is already pissing off most of the Evangelicals because Warren accepted. So this has the effect, politically, of further splintering the Evangelicals.
.
Yes. that’s what he is doing, marginalizing the crazier factions of the party. Same with reappointing Gates. It’s a wedge. If he can split off as ‘bipartisan’ the Republican foreign policy realists, and the evangelicals who believe first in the Sermon on the Mount, and second on hating teh gai, then he has an unstoppable coalition.

Hey, I’m all for talking to and listening to everyone. Think it’s a brilliant strategical move. Was in the campaign (Saddleback, talking to Reilly) and it is a wise course for the future of the D-party, as well as the country. Wacky left-wingers like me realize ideological purity probably ain’t going to fix what ails the nation.

BUT talking/listening to is not the same thing as inviting the SOB to speak at the inaug! If Humphrey had won in ’68 would he have invited Wallace to give a speech anywhere, let alone in the January cold of DC? In other words, if Warren were a segregationist or holocaust apologist would those giving Obama a pass let it go? Oh, it’s just the gays, it’s OK to throw them under the bus.

Bad decision. Joe makes a great argument (one I would like to believe), but again there’s something about bedfellows. I’ve not seen any indication that this is a man (or statesman) any more willing than Bill C. to expend an ounce of political capital for the greater good. Great words, great cumbyeya coming together–the country needs just that, but … I so hope I’m wrong.

Saying something silly like Jews are going to hell (which doesn’t really exist in Judaism, per se), is in no way equal to actively campaigning to take away my civil rights, as Warren has done with his support for Prop 8.

I don’t care if he wants me to burn in eternal hellfire, like you apparently do, Joe. Care, that is. About some mythical Christian notion, no less. Nutty. I just don’t want him to have any say at all about whom I marry.

But then, (as I believe I stated above): I’m not Jewish. I’m only gay.

I think it is very hard to credit the belief in a literal hell, literal heaven from any educated person in the 20th century. I think, if pressed, “Pastors” who profess such literal claims would not answer questions on this issue in a clear way.
–
No, I know several smart people who believe this stuff. 20 minutes with Dawkins would do nothing. These people – some of whom are in my family – are frankly much smarter and probably better educated than Warren. The key thing that you – and I – can not fully comprehend is that these people are motivated by faith, not reason. Reasoning with them is useless. It’s actually true that there are very solid arguments to be made against the power of human reasoning. And yes, I get the paradox implicit in that last sentence. Neuroscientists frequently make such arguments.
–
Until you meet one of those people you probably won’t get it. But they’re out there. It’s strange because religion is generally portrayed as providing meaning to human life (the abortion debate, etc.). But the common thread I’ve seen among deeply religious people – both the heaven/hell true believers and the more moderate – is a belief that humans are essentially insignificant. For all the talk of the selfish gene, Dawkin’s view of humanity is probably more grand than Warren’s. (the city on a hill thing may be an exception – I haven’t met anyone who believes in that) Anyway, it’s not that people who believe in a literal hell and heaven disagree with Hitchens’ reasoning. They just don’t believe that human reasoning is capable of grasping the complexity of life and the universe.
–
BTW, I share much of this skepticism about the capacity of the human intellect. It’s why I’m not an atheist: certainty seems too arrogant for my taste.

In other words, if Warren were a segregationist or holocaust apologist would those giving Obama a pass let it go? Oh, it’s just the gays, it’s OK to throw them under the bus.
–
jcapan, interesting. Everyone is making such good arguments! I’m still undecided…
–
incandenzah, yeah I think if I were gay I’d be very angry about this. We’ve all seen how I react to sexism and racism!

It seems like a smart political move to me. Here’s a man who ran a close to flawless campaign, thousands of employees and millions of volunteers, 50 states, raised a pile of money, making every move he can to draw us together, gives the evangelicals a couple minutes in the inauguration–i’ll be happy to mute those 2 minutes and soak in everything else that day.

Again, all will be forgiven if it’s a speech followed by more than “Don’t ask don’t tell” in the next 8 years.
.
And Rose, before I head to dreaded Osaka for the evening:
.
“religion is generally portrayed as providing meaning to human life”
.
Do you agree–is that the driving motivation to have or at least profess faith? Are you agnostic then? I think anything else is arrogant, unshakeable belief and nonbelief alike. I always go back, surface cheese notw/standing, to Contact and the brilliant Sagan (in particular I can’t get past the evidence-of-love theme). Anyway, I wonder if being an agnostic tempers my nihilism.

But I think most of what we do in life, work, love, play–even politics–is about ascribing meaning to something. The person in sandwich boards outside a courthouse–what she/he is protesting about is irrelevant, it’s the all-consuming faith in the fight. Thus my wife’s aunt who’s leapt from one fringe religion/cult most of her life. All to escape the coming, nagging void, to lessen that very feeling of insignificance and transience.
.
Sometimes (love, art) there is something real there, nebulous but transcendent and real nonetheless, and it can sustain us. Sometimes, usually (religion, politics, and I’d add work for most) I don’t think there’s any there there, and by pouring our energies into it we can veil our eyes to things of real meaning. Thoreau’s scorn for man’s veneration of work particularly apt here.
.
To the Blade Runner set I’m off. Cheers Yanks

Well, I don’t recognize Warren as being Christian in any sense that a theologian would consider valid. Instead, he’s a self-appointed spokesman for bigotry with occasional use of the name of Jesus to keep people from asking too many questions. Still, if the hicks like that sort of thing, no doubt it keeps them out of worse mischief. As for Obama’s motives in inviting him – first, the “Reverend” Rick ain’t going to have a dime’s worth of influence on policy, so don’t be surprised if Obama does some good work for the LGBT community. Second, it does more to hog-tie Warren than anyone else: his immense and obvious vanity wouldn’t let him refuse the chance to babble in the public eye, but it does make it harder for people to float the idiocy about Obama being Muslim/antiChristian etc etc. Think of this as Obama putting a treacherous, but useful, idiot to work.

They just don’t believe that human reasoning is capable of grasping the complexity of life and the universe.
.
But they are still stuck with a series of really dumbass questions like “Okay, then where is it?” The response, “It’s a mystery man. I just believe it.” does indeed end the argument, but it doesn’t do so in a way that a well-educated person would believe is satisfactory. The “Okay then, where is it?” question applies in a number of places, heaven, hell, soul etc. There’s no satisfactory answer beyond “Dude, have another toke.” If there were some kind of consensus, some kind of mass human faithful commitment, then this might be a little more persuasive. But, in fact, people answer the dumbass third grader questions poorly, regardless of sect. The Buddhists do better than most….
.
On your lack of faith in atheist “certainty,” this claim is a canard. Saying that you reject the supernatural is not a statement of certainty or faith. It’s a bizarrely human trait (and a nearly universal trait) to ascribe supernatural motivations to the way things work out. In the absence of a reasonably good understanding of the way things work, this is understandable. But we do now have a reasonably good understanding of how things work, and the supernatural doesn’t enter into it.
.
Mind you, we do not have a REALLY GOOD understanding of how things work. Physics is in a deep quandary, and has been for a couple of generations. What we do know, for sure, is that we do not have to invoke the supernatural to explain any observable phenomena, and, most important, people don’t hold a special place here on the planet, nor in the universe. The assertion that there is supernatural support for people’s continued existence (especially only if they engage in periodic obviously meaningless rituals) is easily dismissed by noting the brevity of time the species has been around. It’s a pretty sucky god that gives you such a short run.
.
speaking of the limitations of man, I really miss preview. I’d like to check this, in a different font, because you see things differently. Can’t.

One thing that I find funny is that it is generally considered to be a political mistake to annoy a constituency. Or at least you should avoid pissing off voters unless you have a very good reason to do so.
.
But, for some reason, in recent years, this rule does not apply to the interests of liberals. You can piss them off to your heart’s content and it is always their fault for being pissed off. And then if they no longer support you politically, it is their fault for being politically naive.
.
For example, let’s say that Obama had invited Michael Moore to attend the inauguration and have some high profile presence. If Obama tried to make some statement like, “I don’t agree with all his views but I want to work with him on issues like manufacturing jobs and health care.” He would have been laughed out of D.C.
.
It would have been considered a political blunder because, EVEN IF MOORE IS RIGHT SUBSTANTIVELY, the fact that he just rubs some constituencies the wrong way would be sufficient for the chattering classes to declare that it was unnecessarily provacative for Obama to associate with him. Nobody would be asking if the Right Wing hysteria was rational.
.
But when Obama involves Rick Warren the political fallout that was 100% foreseeable is not laid at the feet of Obama. The discussion is all about whether some liberals are being reasonable for being pissed at involving Rick Warren.
.
I mean, I suppose that is a question that can be asked. But since it was a foregone conclusion that they were going to be pissed, isn’t the more interesting question whether Obama made a mistake?
.
I hear a lot of talk about how Obama is trying to be more inclusive. Well, sure, most politicians try and expand their bases of support. The tricky part is always figuring out how you woo one constituency without pissing off another. Did the benefits here outweigh the costs? And when we weigh the costs, let’s measure the ACTUAL costs to Obama’s support among liberals and the gay community, not the relatively minimal costs that Obama would suffer if liberals and gays shared the views of Joe Klein.

Perhaps there is a symbolism that we are missing.
Warren at the beginning of the Inauguration is where we are and Joseph Lowery at the end is where we are going.
Not that this symbolism using evolution has a built in paradox or anything.

people don’t hold a special place here on the planet, nor in the universe
Another spot where we disagree (slightly)
.
I like to say:
The Universe should be given as least as much credit for consciousness as its contents. We are part of the Universe and conscious therefore, in that sense, the Universe itself is conscious.
.
Anything past that however is belief in magic.

My hunch was that these posts about Warren were designed to start flame wars, generally Amy’s sole (soul?) purpose in this world, I’m impressed by the by and large thoughtful comments.

Would Joe have a problem if a “religious” Neo-Nazi or Klansman was giving the invocation?

That is the real question here…. Rick Warren is a bigot. The fact that he wraps his bigotry up in scripture is no different from anti-semites and racists who use the bible to justify their politics.

Joe,
Here is where you are dead wrong on this one. It’s not that he says gays are going to hell and stops there. He says gays are equated to child molestors and perpetrators of incest. These are honest hard working honorable American citizens who he equates publicly with criminals and some of the lowest and most dispicable criminals at that.
Imagine for one second that any other group were being equated with scum like this…. insert blacks, jews, hispanics, women, men, anyone…. this kind of bigotry would never be tolerated. Gays are one of the last groups that these things can be said publicly about and the speaker is not shunned, but celebrated and sells books.
Obama will be on the wrong side of history here, and so will you.

Well, I’m gay, and an atheist, and for what’s it’s worth, I’m not pissed off at all, and certainly don’t feel “betrayed.” (And admit to thinking that for the LGBT community to turn this into an issue is just politically silly.) But maybe that’s because I’m the daughter of evangelical, fundamentalist Christian parents. And where my parents are concerned, I know this is a smart move.
***
Look, on LGBT issues, Obama earned all the trust he needed from me a long time ago. I can’t name the date, but it was on the campaign trail at a rally in Gainesville, Texas. Speaking to a largely African-American audience, in a town hall meeting that was supposed to be focused on economic issues, someone asked him a question about LGBT issues. And Obama did something that shocked me — shocked me because I know he’s a politician, shocked me because of how close the primary was at that point, shocked me because it would have been so much easier to say something vague and “safe.” Obama said something along the lines of: “Look, I’m a Christian, but it seems to me that when it comes to gays and lesbians, and especially for us in the African-American community, it seems to me that we Christians are not always very Christ-like.” And he went on to quote the sermon on the mount in support of his stance that all people should be treated equal in the eyes of the law. And to sit there and here Obama say that to a group of people who probably didn’t agree with him, to sit there and imagine what it would be like to live in a world where the President of the United States could speak with that kind of head-on, no-holds-barred honesty to people like my parents… for me, that was the most precious moment of the campaign, and I have replayed youtube clips of that video to friends again and again.

I’m lucky enough to have tickets to Obama’s swearing-in-ceremony, and in the unlikely event that I can find someplace to stay in Washington, hope to be there for the inauguration. Does it bother me that Rick Warren’s going to be part of it? Not at all. Through most of the campaign, my parents were still worried that Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist. He makes them nervous. But he also makes them think and second-guess their own fears. We had a conversation very much along those lines after the Saddleback forum. And everytime Obama reaches out to “those who didn’t vote for me, and may not agree with me on all the issues”… they notice, and they give him a little more credit than they did before, are a little less worried that the world is going to fall apart. Magnify that. To accomplish everything Obama wants to accomplish… to move controversial legislation through congress, Obama knows he has to build-bridges across party lines… yes, even with evangelical, fundamentalist Christians and the politicians they put in office to represent them. Rick Warren? Smart strategy. Go Obama! I’m not worried.

Well, I’m gay, and an atheist, and for what’s it’s worth, I’m not pissed off at all, and certainly don’t feel “betrayed.” (And admit to thinking that for the LGBT community to turn this into an issue is just politically silly.) But maybe that’s because I’m the daughter of evangelical, fundamentalist Christian parents. And where my parents are concerned, I know this is a smart move.
.
well, its a smart move if you believe that its okay to exploit hate and bigotry to enhance your political power.
.
And Obama did something that shocked me — shocked me because I know he’s a politician, shocked me because of how close the primary was at that point, shocked me because it would have been so much easier to say something vague and “safe.” Obama said something along the lines of: “Look, I’m a Christian, but it seems to me that when it comes to gays and lesbians, and especially for us in the African-American community, it seems to me that we Christians are not always very Christ-like.”
.
In other words, Obama ducked the question–and the only message he sent was that you can hate gays all you want to, but beating them up is not right. Unless you were already drunk on the Kool-Aid, no gay or lesbian person would have been impressed with that answer.

Joe,

I agree that Warren’s selection will have absolutely no impact on Obama’s policy. What bothers me more is that the swearing in of the President has anything to do with religion. They can’t find a plain old notary to do it? In my dream world there is no religion to speak of and we all go about our days worrying about truly important things; like what kind of dog the Obamas will get.

plukasiak — I hardly think Obama is exploiting hate & bigotry to enhance his political power. Do I think my parents and other, as I’m guessing you would call them, “gay-haters” are ignorant and wrong? Yes. Do I think screaming that at them until I’m blue in the face will ever change their mind or accomplish anything but bitterness? No. Because as wrong as I think their beliefs are, they are sincere beliefs. And the only way the gap between their reality and my reality ever has any hope of being bridged is through dialogue. I’m sorry you think that’s selling out. I disagree.

plukasiak — I hardly think Obama is exploiting hate & bigotry to enhance his political power
.
that’s exactly what he’s doing — and if you bothered to read what you’ve written, you’d understand that. You’re saying that Obama will gain credibility and support of your homophobic parents because Warren is giving the invocation — and that its a “smart move.” That’s exploiting hate and bigotry to enhance his political power. Period.
.
Racists were “sincere” in their beliefs. Anti-Semites are “sincere” in their beliefs. Just because you’re “sincere” doesn’t mean you’re not a bigoted scumbag — and only the most amoral and cynical narcissists would allow the legitimization of the hate spewed by bigoted scumbags through giving them a prominent place in the inauguration.

Elena, thank you for putting this in perspective for all of us. So many times we all get outraged for people who may not be themselves outraged. Not every gay blogger speaks for every gay person.

.
I think another aspect that people are missing is that this shines a light on Rick Warren that he has never really had shined on him before. There are people who adore Rick Warren just because of his books who had no idea where he stood on political issues and now a lot of this stuff that is coming out is knocking some of the luster off of him. When he says in one breath that gay people are directing hate speech at him and then in the next a video clip is show of him comparing gay relationships to statuatory rape or incest or polygamy that pretty much shows the hypocrite that he is on the REASONS behind his political positions and its something most Americans have never known about him. Rick Warren has sold over 20 million books, he pastors a “mega church”, he hosted a presidential “debate” at his church that was shown nationwide. Him speaking at the inauguration won’t elevate him because he is probably already as high as he can go. But it might just educate people on the hypocrisy of not only him, but every other right wing preacher in this country. That is IF we don’t continue with this hyperactive reaction to him. Im watching the hacktackular show Morning Joe right now and they are pushing the “the left are hypocrites” meme to perfection. They are saying that the reaction to Rick Warren is actually just as divisive and restrictive of free speech as Rick Warren’s words are. And in my opinion there is a little bit of truth to that. Instead of all of this grousing and grumbing people should stick to pointing out the fallacies in his statements. All yesterday with all of the cable news shows having gay activists and liberal activists on I didn’t see even one person explain how Prop 8 had nothing to do with free speech which would have destroyed his entire premise for endorsing it. I didn’t see one person talking about explain WHY its absurd for Rick Warren to compare gay marriage to incest or statuatory rape. I didn’t see one person point out that in the Bible King Solomon had many wives so the concept of the historical definition of marriage has not always been about one man and one woman. No, all I saw was outrage at Obama choosing Warren instead of the focus being on WHY Rick Warren is an outrage. The left is practically making Rick Warren into a martyr with their opposition and in my opinion it is doing more harm than good because when he says he is getting hate speech thrown at him, instead of people laughing at him, we are now validating his point.
.
I will also point out that when Joe Lowery’s name comes up none of these gay activists or liberal activist gave him even a line or two of endorsement for HIS support for gay rights. It would have been nice if they actually took the time to contrast his views with Warren’s views and it would have advanced the notion that not all Preachers in this country feel the same way about gay rights as Rick Warren does. It actually would have also elevated the debate about gay rights in my opinion. By not acknowledging Lowery I think they made it easier for people to dismiss them as just being unreasonable.

I will also point out that when Joe Lowery’s name comes up none of these gay activists or liberal activist gave him even a line or two of endorsement for HIS support for gay rights
.
so you think it would be okay to have a Klansman give the invocation as long as someone who was supportive of civil rights for African Americans was giving the benediction?

elana–
.
Could you please post a link to that clip?
.

elena–
.
Could you please post a link to that clip?
.

What atrios said:
.
They lied. Hundreds of thousands of people died. Then they lied about lying.
.
How they live with themselves I do not know. How the Villagers get more upset about, say, John Edwards’ big house than this stuff I do not know.

.
I really don’t know how they live with themselves. I really don’t understand why the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is not the subject of countless stories.

Is the paragraph break thing fixed?

There seem to be extra carriage returns on the manual breaks.

No. Not fixed.
.
Now it looks like putting a standalone character inserts two line feeds. Sheesh.

I guess it doesn’t matter at all that the other pastor is Joseph Lowry who openly supports gay marriage. As PNNTO said, Lowry is the word going forward via the benediction.
.
Rick Warren is a name millions know instantly because of his books and most wouldn’t be thinking about his stand on gay issues if there were not such a fuss being made. Another evangelical like Tony Camplo would not have had the obvious impact of reaching out.
.
I think we are going to see real support for the gay community from Obama. I believe in him because I think his core values are good ones. My issue is choice and I don’t think he is going to sell me out. Of course, we’ll see when the first SCOTUS nominee comes up.

Ok, I’m apparently not awake yet and have no clue how I confused Gainesville, Fl with Beaumont, TX, so apologies. The original video clip has been removed from youtube. But… there’s another video where you can see the clip… it’s exactly 4 minutes into the video.

***

Obama Beaumont LGBT video

***

if that link doesn’t work, here’s the url:

thank you elena.

Obama has made a habit out of inviting religious homophobes to his events, in the name of fostering dialogue. Funny how his invitations to chat never extend to racists. There are calculated limits to this president’s professed inclusiveness, and gay people are right to call him on his hypocrisy.

Obama has wasted his political capital with some of his strongest supporters in order to court the affection of a group not exactly known for compromise on principles. What will happen when he is faced with a substantive decision on gay and lesbian issues? If he caves to the right, he will be rightly despised by gays whom he has denied even symbolic support. If he supports them, will evangelicals cut him slack because he invited them to his party?

Good luck with that.

plukasiak
.
Here is the difference regardless if we want to acknowledge it or not. In 3 states bans on gay marriage were on the ballot Nov 4th. In 2 of the 3 states Obama actually won. In all 3 the people voted to ban gay marriage. So whether we like it or not at least on Nov 4th a majority in those state showed that they still do not agree with gay marriage. You won’t find a KKK spokesman who has an agenda that the majority in any state would vote for. This is a false equivalency and a strawman that is flying across the liberal blogosphere.
.
Sometimes we have to be reminded that America is not what we hope it to be it is what it actually is. And Rick Warren represents a view point that a majority in one of the most liberal states in the union supported no matter how we want to parse it.

chrisdr
.
The results of the presidential election don’t jibe with what you said. Both in Florida and California people obviously voted for Barack Obama who also voted against gay marriage. I would say that indeed DOES show their ability to compromise on certain issues.
.
A handy reminder from John Cole

You won’t find a KKK spokesman who has an agenda that the majority in any state would vote for. This is a false equivalency and a strawman that is flying across the liberal blogosphere.

its you who are defending bigotry dishonestly here. The FACT that there are bigots in this country — including a significant number of Obama supporters — does not make bigotry acceptable. Indeed, Obama has an obligation to make sure that the bigots who support him understand that he does not support them. Rick Warren doesn’t merely legitimize the hate of “conservatives”, it sends the Obama-bigots the message that their hate is perfectly acceptable to Obama as well.

sgwhiteinfla–

How many of those pro-Obama votes were from evangelicals? And this is before Obama accumulates a presumably pro-gay record as president:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2008/11/the_evangelical.html

I agree including a KKK spokesman would be over the top, but how about a well-spoken racist deploring affirmative action for minorities and the lack of familial “responsiblity” in the inner cities? Shouldn’t this unfortunately common view in the America as it “actually is” be given a place at Obama’s table? You know, for “dialogue”?

But they are still stuck with a series of really dumbass questions like “Okay, then where is it?” The response, “It’s a mystery man. I just believe it.” does indeed end the argument, but it doesn’t do so in a way that a well-educated person would believe is satisfactory.
–
jayackroyd, No, actually it does. Just to be clear, that answer wouldn’t satisfy me. But I know smart, well-educated people who are satisfied with a more literate version of that answer. Have you really met none of these people? It’s surprising. Anyway I promise I’m not making this up! There are educated, intelligent people – not Sarah Palin, in other words – who believe this stuff.
–
And to help explain the phenomenon – in my own family and elsewhere – my mom has a theory that what children are told about religion tends to stick in their minds, especially when it’s fear-based. Most religious people I’ve met who believe in a literal hell are deeply afraid of going there. Fear is a powerful mechanism.
–
Committed atheists are equivalent to committed believers, with the caveat that religious extremists are different. If you’re convinced that jews are going to hell, you’re not equivalent to Christopher Hitchens. But the arguments used by atheists and believers are remarkably similar. Atheists claim that we can explain much phenomena without supernatural explanations, and considering our success there is no reason to think that unexplained phenomena need supernatural explanations. Thus there is no God. (The reasoning collapses a little towards the conclusion, because of course there’s no reason that a religious universe would have to include easily visible supernatural phenomena. It’s kind of the ultimate strawman argument.) Religious people point to human ignorance and unexplained phenomena, and conclude that God is real. In both cases the conclusion is based on unsupported assumptions about human intellect and natural phenomena.
–
BTW, I’m not anti-religious and anti-atheism. The only thing that irritates me is when people confuse faith with certainty, and try to legislate on the basis of the latter. If someone has faith that there is no God, that’s fine. And vice versa.
–
jcapan, Agnostic seems too grand a label for what I am. Maybe waffler? A proud waffler, in fact. I celebrate my indecision! I’m happy to not share Stalin’s and Jerry Falwell’s certainty.
–
You won’t find a KKK spokesman who has an agenda that the majority in any state would vote for. This is a false equivalency and a strawman that is flying across the liberal blogosphere.
–
SG, not right now. But in the past, yes there were “KKK” states. So the question is whether bigotry should be accommodated when it’s widespread. It’s not an easy question.

People keep talking about legitimizing something but you are focused on Rick Warren’s rhetoric about gay marriage and abortion. First let me point out AGAIN more than 20 million books, hosted one of only 4 presidential debates, heads a mega church. Sorry folks, Rick Warren has ALREADY been legitimized. Praying at the inauguration will probably hurt HIM more than help him.
.
Secondly the numbers don’t lie, if you want to say that all of the people who voted for prop 8 are bigots thats fine, but you are still talking about the majority of people in 3 different states two of which went for BO. It is what it is.
.
As for the KKK or just a plain old racist, there are some of those people in congress RIGHT NOW. Do you think Barack Obama won’t have to get some of of them on board to push through his agenda? Hell I am sure many folks question whether Tom Coburn is a racist, and yet Obama has reached out to him before and will in the future. Rick Warren isn’t going to be in a Cabinet. Quick name the people who prayed for both of Bush’s inaugurations. I can tell you right now I have no clue and neither do most folks. I could guess Billy Graham but that would be a guess.
.
When Barack Obama reals DADT will that legitimize Rick Warren? When he passes the Freedom of Choice act will that legitimize Rick Warren. You want to see how much this has “helped” Rick Warren? Go over to some right wing religious web sites and see what they have to say. Go over to Brody’s site and see how “happy” they are for him to be doing the prayer.
.
If I tell my kids I am getting them a bike for Christmas and then get them a bike for Christmas and they are dissappointed because they wanted skateboards guess whose fault that is. Barack Obama has had nothing but good things to say about Warren all during the campaign. He also himself said he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. He also said he was interested in reaching ALL people even the ones he disagrees with. He didn’t just make this sh!t up yesterday. He is doing what he said he would do. Period.
.
And before you say I am backing him no matter what, go look up some of the sh!t I said about him forgiving Lieberman. That was about policy and when it comes to policy Barack Obama has been as good a friend to the LGBT movement as you will find in the Senate. And I see no reason to believe that will change after Jan 20th.

But I know smart, well-educated people who are satisfied with a more literate version of that answer. Have you really met none of these people?
.
In my experience, here in the northeast, these people’s “more literate” version is not far removed from John Shelby Spong’s, essentially in opposition to scripture, and to any kind of literal reading of it. They’re more platonists than Christians.
.
Most religious people I’ve met who believe in a literal hell are deeply afraid of going there. Fear is a powerful mechanism.
.
Dawkins goes on, at length, at how evil this is. Points out that at the very least what you should get out of Christianity is equanimity in the face of death. But, in the event, terror is more common.
.
Committed atheists are equivalent to committed believers
.
Again, this is a canard. Nobody says that someone who thinks astrology or animism is nonsense is considered to be “committed” to anything. That a false belief in some supernatural element is widely held doesn’t make it a “commitment” to observe that the supernatural, pretty much by definition, doesn’t exist. Observing that the belief system is clearly crazy, and, in point of fact, is not really held by most of the “committed believers” is not an act of faith.
.
Atheists claim that we can explain much phenomena without supernatural explanations, and considering our success there is no reason to think that unexplained phenomena need supernatural explanation
.
Atheists simply repeat Carl Sagan’s assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the most basic elements of religious belief are clearly nonsense. The easiest way to see this is to note that sects regard most other sects as believing in nonsense. That people who weekly recite their adherence to the Nicean Creed make fun of the 70 houri awaiting Muslim martyrs is instructive.
.
Animists are routinely derided as uncivilized savages. But, for my money, animism is among the most coherent of religious beliefs.

That a false belief in some supernatural element is widely held doesn’t make it a “commitment” to observe that the supernatural, pretty much by definition, doesn’t exist.
–
jayackroyd, I guess we’ll never agree on this atheism issue. Saying that it’s a “false belief” is a faith-based statement. Also, the whole supernatural phenomena thing is rather irrelevant to the larger religion issue.
–
Nobody says that someone who thinks astrology or animism is nonsense is considered to be “committed” to anything.
–
Astrology is a little different because it’s more like a testable hypothesis. But people who are certain that animism is nonsense are committed to something. The truth is that none of this can be conclusively proven. We cannot disprove animism. So any conviction that animism is nonsense is by definition a faith-based conviction.
–
I guess this is another one of those issues that could be best examined with the idea of a spectrum, a faith spectrum. It’s fair to say that each of these theories – Animism, Catholicism, Buddhism – is unlikely to be true; There is (probably) only one truth and there are countless theories. Some of us reject Mormonism for example, or the city on a hill idea. We have faith that those theories are not true. But to reject all theories, including the possibility of undiscovered but “true” theories, except one is a pretty big leap of faith. Which is fine. There’s nothing wrong with leaps of faith. I just find it irritating when people pretend to reject faith when in fact they have as much faith as the Pope.

Unfortunately, plukasiak’s reaction, to call the other side “scumbags”, to make them the adversary, is part of why our country is so polarized. And frankly, it’s unproductive.
.
No one around here is defending Warren’s views, but I also think it’s lazy thinking to analogize him with David Duke, or Nazis and the KKK. Warren is dead wrong on homosexuality, on equal rights, on other religions, on heaven and hell (probably, but I don’t know), but he’s not evil or hateful or malicious. He’s ignorant and parochial, and his world is small.
.
By protesting so vigorously, the left are making Warren more important than he is. He’s just a pastor. He right of center. So what? He’s not setting policy. He’s giving a 2-minute prayer. Ignore him if you wish. His role is miniscule in the scheme of things.

Saying that it’s a “false belief” is a faith-based statement. Also, the whole supernatural phenomena thing is rather irrelevant to the larger religion issue.
.
You’re saying that any assertion that a phenomenon is false is faith-based? That saying, with Asimov, that there have been alien visitors is only plausible if someone shows up with the hardware? Or that saying that airplanes can fly, but dogs cannot is a statement of faith?
.
Dawkins deals with this by saying that he regards the probability of the truth of a given religious belief to be non-zero, but of the same order of magnitude as the presence of fairies in his garden. That’s a cop-out, IMO. There are no fairies in his garden. And there is no immortal, omniscient Creator guy deeply concerned with activities of a primate on one planet that’s only been around for about 40,000 years, and probably has been around longer than it has to time to go. It’s an absurd proposition, even if it is widely held.
.
I guess this is another one of those issues that could be best examined with the idea of a spectrum, a faith spectrum. It’s fair to say that each of these theories – Animism, Catholicism, Buddhism – is unlikely to be true; There is (probably) only one truth and there are countless theories.
.
These aren’t theories. Theories generate testable hypotheses, and can be refuted. For example, the existence of an immortal soul should generate testable hypotheses. There are innumerable reasons why it can’t be true, but if it were true the people who assert that consciousness exists outside of any physical vessel, should have some way to prove it. But they don’t. That’s why we’re talking about is indeed the supernatural. And, by definition, the supernatural doesn’t exist. Regardless of how many people think it does, and in what variety of flavors.
.
The fact that everybody disbelieves the vast majority of human belief in the supernatural, excepting only the ones they personally believe in (Christian astrology believers, for example) is indicative. You have a majority vote against them all as being actually true.
.

[...] Time’s Joe Klein, though, doesn’t find much to get worked up about in the Warren invitation. “I have no problem with Barack Obama asking Reverend Rick to deliver a prayer at the Inauguration. It will have zero–repeat, zero–impact on the policies of the Obama Administration.” It might do some good, Klein continues, if it makes those who agree with Warren’s conservative social views to give Obama “the benefit of the doubt on controversial stuff like talking to the Iranians or universal health insurance, then it’s worth it. If it causes evangelicals to say, ‘Well, he’s not demonizing us, maybe we shouldn’t demonize him,’ it’s worth it. If it makes Rush Limbaugh’s toxic blather about our next President seem even the slightest bit ridiculous and over-the-top to his idiot legion of ditto heads, it’s worth it. “ [...]

The point of referring to racists, nibbly, is that Obama would not regard that as productive inclusiveness. I think paul would be more effective if he were less scathing, but his point is a pretty reasonable one. That Warren is a nice homophobe, preaching that people should be ostracized, but in a nice way, is objectionable. But, as atrios says, the Villagers cheer you on when you punch a dirty hippie.

jay: Of course, what Warren believes is objectionable. But what is getting lost the is bigger picture of what Obama is trying to achieve.
.
Is Obama trying to score political points with people who agree with Warren? Of course he is! Do you think just because they are wingnuts they can’t effectively stop Obama’s political agenda? We need to work with them, not just vilify them. We’ve seen examples of this conciliatory aspect of Obama many times. His working with John Cornyn. His clemency of Lieberman. His respect for Hagel and Lugar.
.
If giving Warren two minutes to give a prayer pays enough political dividends to repeal DOMA and DADT, and lessen objections to Obama’s 2 openly gay appointments, isn’t it worth it? I think it is.

These aren’t theories. Theories generate testable hypotheses, and can be refuted.
–
True. That was bad wording. Maybe untestable hypotheses?
–
You’re saying that any assertion that a phenomenon is false is faith-based?
–
No, I’m saying that blanket statements claiming that there are no supernatural (which is also not the right word…) phenomena are faith-based. In contrast, the claim that gravity is not a supernatural phenomena is clearly not faith-based.
–
There are innumerable reasons why it can’t be true, but if it were true the people who assert that consciousness exists outside of any physical vessel, should have some way to prove it.
–
Why? If there is something so much larger and more powerful than us, it’s not surprising that we would be incapable of understanding it.
–
The fact that everybody disbelieves the vast majority of human belief in the supernatural, excepting only the ones they personally believe in (Christian astrology believers, for example) is indicative. You have a majority vote against them all as being actually true.
–
I’m not seeing that. First, most of these untestable hypotheses evolved in smaller regions that had little contact with the outside world. That makes majority movements more difficult. Then if suddenly majority votes mean something, shouldn’t it matter that most people do believe in God? Personally I don’t think popularity or unpopularity is a valid indicator of pretty much anything. Disco was once a worldwide phenomenon, which is indicative of the meaninglessness of popularity.

Excellent post, Joe. Thank you for being reasonable when so many people right now aren’t.

The heart of our disagreement, Rose, is in the use of the word “supernatural.” Why do you say this is the wrong word?

jayackroyd, Okay this is my last post on the topic: I’ve reached my monthly quota for religious conversation.
–
First I think the use of the word “supernatural” is not at the heart of our disagreement. It’s probably pretty tangential. IMO, the heart of our disagreement is that I think it’s impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die. Thus atheism is as faith-based as Mormonism.
–
Anyway here is a definition of supernatural I found: “1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
.
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)”
–
There is a kind of judgment, an assumption implied in the use of the word supernatural. If consciousness existed in a non-physical form, I don’t think the best word to describe it would be supernatural. It just means that our current theories about consciousness are inadequate. Judging by that dictionary definition in 2a., the atomic bomb must have appeared supernatural to some of its victims. My point is that supernatural isn’t the ideal word to describe something that – if true – merely indicates the limits of human intellect. Considering the assumptions and history tied to the word, supernatural is probably an adequate but not ideal word choice to describe religious views of life and consciousness.
–
And now I’m going to do what any good agnostic/waffler does: Christmas shopping!

I fail to see how Obama is trying to “change the nature of public discourse” by selecting a bigoted bloviator who repeatedly declares that my same-sex relationship is morally equivalent to my raping a child. Nor do I understand why Obama responds to criticism of that choice by telling gay people that WE need to disagree without being disagreeable. Excuse me? All I see is simple hypocrisy that orders progressives to grin and nod at expression of even the most virulent bigotry if spewed by the right but to never, ever criticize Barack Obama from the left. Sorry, that’s not the kind of change I voted for, and it’s not the kind of change I’ll ever accept. I was viciously slandered enough by the Bush Administration. I won’t put up with it, not for one second, from the Obama Administration. And it’s time Obama learned that lesson before he triangulates and panders to bigots again.

Any way you look at it, beginning one’s Administration with a prayer from a person who condemns the majority of Americans (gays, Jews, women & men who believe in reproductive rights) but thinks Syria is a land of tolerance is a terrible, shameful signal to send to the country and the world. It is a message of EXclusion to the Nth degree, not a gesture of INclusion (Warren, BTW, is being pummeled from the right for participating in this godforsaken inauguration).

I urge everyone who attends the inauguration to quietly sing “We Shall Overcome” throughout the course of the invocation. Surely tens of thousands of voices of hope, singing for equality & peace, with drown out the bigoted prayers of one man, no matter how bully the pulpit or how powerful the amplifiers.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

I think it’s impossible to be certain about what, if anything, happens after we die.
.
I happen to think you’re wrong about “supernatural” being at the heart of the disagreement, but I’ll take this.
.
This is, on its face, an absurd claim. Nobody would assert that there is any uncertainty about what happens when a cockroach or a mouse or a turnip dies. Sorry, that’s not so. There are Hindus who would disagree.
.
So let me say this, instead. The idea that there is something permanent, a soul, uniquely associated with human beings is absurd. As Ernst Mayr has said that, when asked about the source of human consciousness, he always says “animal consciousness.”
.
Having a dog has really illuminated this for me. Early on, she illustrated how complicated consciousness is, and how much of it she had. Little things like knowing where you are and where home is is an enormously difficult problem. Solved, instantly.
.
So I’ll say this. I claim that it is an invocation of the supernatural to assert the continuation (Or pre-existence) of an individual human consciousness after (or before) death. I’ll note that people are working on the nature of human consciousness. Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained and William Calvin, in How Brains Think explore the nature of consciousness. It is very hard to assert that it is independent of the medium within it arises, and any such assertions necessarily invoke the realm of the supernatural.
.

[...] The Not-So-Right Reverend Rick I am not a big fan of Rick Warren’s. He thinks I’m going to hell. He said so in mixed company, at an Aspen [...] [...]

[...] Warren, and Heaven December 20, 2008 — sol Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein doesn’t like Rick Warren. Why? Because Rick Warren thinks he’s going to [...]

I guess the Obama messianic complex is fading.

[...] lot of the discussion has emphasized what this does or doesn’t mean policy wise, from Joe Klein’s “Hey it doesn’t matter” to Reynold’s “you’ll see” to Glen Greendwald’s midly skeptical [...]