Lost In The Dustup Over Rick Warren Giving The Inaugural Invocation

is the fact that it's the 21st century and we're STILL having public invocations given to an imaginary being.

Where's the outrage over that?

I don't care about stuff like invocations and benedictions. With something like 80% of the population claiming to be Christians of some sort, it's not surprising.

I think Obama made a very strange choice, though, with this invoker.

Rick Warren is a total douchebag, but he's still not the WORST of the douchebags.

There are many, many worse fundamentalcase preachers out there. Warren's a good-time charlie in comparison with some. He's also a whore when it comes to powerful people. He "gets down on his knees" before them. :bounce:

Mussolini was a hell of a guy when compared to Hilter.

Monthy Python's "The Meaning of Life"

My, my...

Let's quote the whole scene (and the most excellent hymn that follows!)

CHAPLAIN:
Let us praise God. O Lord,...
CONGREGATION:
O Lord,...
CHAPLAIN:
...ooh, You are so big,...
CONGREGATION:
...ooh, You are so big,...
CHAPLAIN:
...so absolutely huge.
CONGREGATION:
...so absolutely huge.
CHAPLAIN:
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
CONGREGATION:
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
CHAPLAIN:
Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
CONGREGATION:
And barefaced flattery.

CHAPLAIN:
But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
CONGREGATION:
Fantastic.
HUMPHREY:
Amen.
CONGREGATION:
Amen.

{snip}

CHAPLAIN and CONGREGATION:
O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-05-ii.htm

of death according to leviticus so fuck that nasty religion. :puke:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Recommended.:thumbsup:

What I won't tolerate is hate and bigotry in the name of religion.

On edit: Well hate and bigotry in the name of anything.

If people really want something to get outraged over, what about all the Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) place names in California?

I haven't heard of anyone suing to have the city of Los Angeles (the angels) change its name. Or even San Francisco (Saint Francis), or our state capitol Sacramento (sacrament).

but the state does not have to take part in religious ceremonies either.

or Minerva or any other city whose name is derived from some ancient god. At the same time, no one these days is offering invocations to Athena or Minerva as part of their presidential inauguration ceremonies, at least as far as I know.

I have no problem with the names of cities in CA (I happen to live in Laguna Niguel...which is German for "the vagina of an OC whale") which are named after "saints." That's part of history, after all. Start changing names on such a basis and we'll all need new maps and roadsigns.

...you owe me a keyboard.

after some long dead catholic. People from other states really notice it because they are not accustomed to it.

I always wonder what atheists think when they drive down 280 and see a 20+ foot tall priest pointing at them.

always did. :D

I just told them it was "another Mr T's franchise..."

But as this century appears as benighted in this respect as the ones that have preceded it, I don't see the presence of a priest/reverend/witch doctor/what have you as particularly worthy of disapprobation.


(Hmm ... is it obvious I've been reading 18th century writing recently? Man, this was one unnecessarily flowery post. :P )

In case you lost sight of the Constitution, we have the right to worship a God, even if you personally don't believe in God.

Would Obama get demerits from god or something?

Why is it necessary to have a preacher/bible/invocation at the inauguration?

Remove it and none of this would be an issue.

Will your head explode?

What's the worst that could happen?

There are all sorts of things he might want but wouldn't do at that event.

My head is going to be brimming with excitement when Obama takes office. I don't care if he jacks off while reading the bible later that night. I'm just saying he doesn't *need* anything religious at the ceremony and he's still going to be the Pres.

Just as Obama is doing this year.

How about getting excited about something important?

:grr:

I have no concern, and I don't care that it pisses you off.

Sid

{smooch}

Why is this such a source of contention with everyone? Elect an atheist as president if you don't want him/her to swear on a religious text. :eyes:

to a higher degree, no bibles in court or in swearing in ceremonies. Easter is still a holiday, however, because a vast majority of people celebrate it.

If a president feels the need to have some sky daddy bless his presidency, have him do it in a house of worship, NOT as part of a govt ceremony in what is SUPPOSED TO be a secular government.

It's a ceremony. Your nonbeliefs aren't threatened.

If so, then prayer has NO place in official government ceremonies. I'm not sure why that seems to be so difficult for people to comprehend.

BTW - nobody's non-beliefs are threatened. It's their reason and logic that are assaulted.

You better watch out when god get pissed. :hide:

:D

Oh...wait....

:)

:shrug:

Sid

And I am curious --- has there ever been a time when the GBLT community at DU has not been angry?

It is tiring to keep up with all the outrage.

Thinly veiled as something else.

I wouldn't bite, if I were you.

but nothing in the Constitution says that we must believe or even pretend to believe that your beliefs are fact-based.

It's more possible to eject a fat, hateful fuckwit than an imaginary deity...there's actually something to grab hold of.
:shrug:

Too many people still cling to a belief that imaginary beings (or being) influences their life. Over time, reason will win out over superstition, IMO --- but not now.

And even though I may see the Bible as an archaic fairy tale --- I would never impose my non-belief on anyone. Obama has a right to believe and swear upon whatever he wants. It's his vows, not mine. I still respect the man and am thrilled he is our next Pres!

You are in the minority, as am I --- don't hold your breath for any outrage because it is a 'religious' invocation (as silly as it may be). Now Warren himself, that deserves a little outrage.

It will take a long time to stamp out irrationality.

--IMM

Rationality, my dears, is overrated

:evilgrin:

;)

from a robot...what fun!

But, hey!...Keep up the smug Superiority!...It guess it mitigates the lonliness of your minority "belief"

In any case, this is getting to be a yawn...Outta here...Don't care who believes what:hi:

It's a very altruistic superiority. And no one has ever mistaken me for a robot.

--IMM

If no one has mistaken you for a robot, it is because you, like the rest of us, are not "completely rational".

A century or more ago, believing that disease was caused by microbes would have been laughed at as "irrational"....A short time ago you could not have "proven" we have "thoughts".

The point: Empirical depends heavily on the growth of technology..Those who base their entire belief system on it are quite limited.

Rationality can be the result of deductive thought as well as empirical observation. For instance, my lack of belief is based on the internal contradictions stemming from whatever god system is proposed. It's not empirical.

Empirical would be: I wished for a pony, and I got one for Christmas, therefore Santa Claus is real.

--IMM

Those internal contradictions you see in another person's god system are not entirely 'internal'. If you think about it, you will realize you are bringing into your analysis facts or considerations that the other person did not see or did not value as significant. You see them and you value them as significant because of the experiences that have made you who you are and have shaped your thought processes.

I think we use words differently. I might use experiential where you use empirical. I don't regard that as objective though. Empirical, to me implies controlled conditions that are reproducible.

Nevertheless it seems you acknowledge that god systems are not rational. Furthermore, the internal contradiction can exist even if they are ignored by the believer. The main fact or consideration I bring to the analysis is that a statement cannot be both true and false.

I have not rejected all possible god systems. The ones I have heard of, fall by the weight of the contradictions. Just because someone doesn't recognize them doesn't mean they're not there. (See also "tree falls in forest.")

--IMM

Your opinion carries no greater relevance nor credibility than those who choose to believe, yet you issue your statement as if fact.

Try and show a little more tolerance next time.

--IMM

Any even slightly rational being would be rational enough to recognize that the concept of God is in no way comparable to a belief in polka dotted unicorns with the tail of a dragon. Your attempt to group them as equivalent is a huge failure.

--IMM

people should be rational by now.

kick