The inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama is less than two weeks away, and at this point, the biggest controversy of the event may be a prayer.
Recently, Obama selected Christian pastor Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Since then, there has been an outcry regarding the selection of Warren and whether he will use Jesus' name in the prayer.
Warren is from California, and his selection for this honor was quickly criticized by homosexual rights activists. Warren supported Proposition 8, which California voters passed in last November's election that banned homosexual marriage.
Gay activists felt that Warren's selection was insensitive to their cause. Obama defended his decision saying that he wanted his inauguration to reflect diverse views and that he remained an advocate of gay rights, according to the Associated Press.
Homosexual marriage is one of the touchiest social issues in our country. The outcry against Warren was especially ironic because the gay rights movement often stresses how important 'tolerance' should be when it comes to advancing their cause.
However, the spirit of tolerance in noticeably absent from their handling of this matter. Warren opposes their agenda so they want to shut him up. So much for tolerance.
Tolerance is a two-way street, but too often, groups want to use it as a smoke screen to advance their agenda while stifling opposing points of view. This is just another example of this.
Another element of this controversy is whether Warren will use Jesus' name in the prayer. In both of President Bush's inaugurations, prayers were led that included Jesus, and it created controversy then, too. There was at least one lawsuit as a result of this, but it was eventually dismissed.
Let's look at this again from the perspective of tolerance. If a Christian is going to be asked to lead a prayer at this event, how in the world can he not be allowed to mention Jesus? If a Christian is going to lead the prayer, don't other people have a responsibility to be tolerant with how that person prays?
After all, without Jesus, there is no Christianity. Leaving Jesus out of a Christian prayer is like trying to breathe without oxygen. It just doesn't work.
Of course, there are others who feel that there must be sensitivity toward people of other faiths. Given how politically fractured our nation is, the last thing we need is for prayer to be a source of division at the inauguration. An inauguration is an event that is supposed to unify Americans and squabbling over an issue like this brings tension.
While that argument has some merit, I believe there are some aspects of life that require a firm attitude, and a person's faith is one of those aspects.
When it comes to religion and spirituality, our nation has been waffling toward a view where everything goes in recent years. Our nation's idea of religious tolerance has resulted in all religions being poured into one blender and mixed together until God is portrayed as one generic blob.
The bottom line is that religions practiced in our country have profound differences. Special interest groups can try and water this down all they want, but it won't change the truth.
Call me crazy, but I believe our nation is strong enough to handle these differences. We don't need to be protected from the possibility of having our feelings hurt.
Americans are strong and resilient. We also have a free will. If a person doesn't want to pray in the name of Jesus, he can choose not to.
1 comment:
America is one of the few countries, maybe the only country, where the issue would even be discussed. Wonder what it would be like in, say, Saudi Arabia, if a Christian protested a newly elected official praying a Muslim prayer? Oh - wait - that's right, not everyone gets to elect their leaders.
Post a Comment