Your Reactions to Rick Warren's Invocation: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Respond
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
I'm struck by all the thoughtful and heartfelt comments responding to Rick Warren's inaugural invocation—to his invoking Jesus, reciting the Lord's Prayer, and borrowing lines from Judaism and Islam.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims—many of whom attended the inauguration in person—have posted. Some Jews felt excluded from Warren's prayer, a Muslim imam was moved, and quite a few Christians were relieved that Warren resisted succumbing to the kind of watered-down civil religion that they feel stifles genuine religious expression.
Here are some of my favorite comments from the last couple of days. Take a look, and, while the invocation is still fresh, add your own thoughts.
Aaron of New Jersey
Every Jewish kid who grew up in the small towns of the South knows how it hurts to be blessed in Jesus's name. If you don't bow your head, you are insulting the person giving the prayer, if you do, you feel hurt inside. Reverend Lowery managed to make his blessing all inclusive, perhaps because he knows better how it feels to be left out.
An imam in New York
I was heartened to listen to Reverend Warren's prayer . . . As I listened I heard him use Christian, Jewish and Muslim references together. All Muslim's hearts stir when they hear "the compassionate, the merciful" because of the Qur'anic reference. The fact that this is said in the bible as well only reinforces our brotherhood as descendants of Abraham (peace be upon him). And his reference to the Shema was clear and unequivocal. This was a prayer of unification and of looking forward. I for one was pleasantly surprised by his ecumenical tone and applaud him for it.
Anonymous of Illinois
What we need to realize is that this country isn't an atheistic/agnostic/Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/<insert religion here> country with Christians living in it. It's a Christian nation with followers of other faiths/or no faith living in it . . . I find it ironic, that those very same citizens with differing faith-expressions who are afforded the freedom to live here based on our Christian principles, are offended when someone utters the name of Jesus—the person to whom the credit is owed for the freedom and liberty THEY enjoy. If it destroys you so much who wish to try to stop it, you have the freedom to live here as much as you do to get out.
Jen of Texas
As a Jewish woman who watched the invocation with her Jewish son, Pastor Warren had the distinct pleasure of providing us both with the one moment today we felt truly alienated from our country.
It was a reminder that although I'm tolerated, and my vote is courted, when push comes to shove despite all that is outlined regarding Freedom of Religion, I was not truly included in everything today.
On this day when the entire country was reaching out to pull together, I resented it more than I thought I would, even though I expected it.
Terry of Georgia
The whole idea of being ecumenical in such a setting means to avoid being religiously selfish in every way possible. Doing so imparts dignity and respect to other beliefs. Anything short of that undermines the whole effort. Ecumenical? Pastor Warren fell short. I had hoped he would rise to the occasion. I'm a Christian and the Lord's Prayer is sacred—but, opportunities to be ecumenical are opportunities for Christians toward the greatest commandment 'To love one another.' A minister on the scale of a Pastor Warren diminishes his efforts if he does not recognize such a basic tenant of our faith. If fact, such a missed opportunity could have been very evangelistic.
Kurt O of Texas
If a person is Muslim I expect them to pray based on their tradition. If they are Jewish I expect them to pray from the Hebrew tradition. We're really got to get past being offended when someone is being true to their culture, ethnicity and spiritual tradition.
- Read more by Dan Gilgoff.
- Read more about religion.
Tags: Inauguration | religion | Rick Warren
Tools:
Share
|
| Comments (13) | Print
Reader Comments
Hear Hear
Hear hear to that. If indeed "Mysterious Traveler" is right, and if indeed the founding fathers, as he/she alleges, were opposed to Christianity or Religion for that matter, why did George Washington, and the rest of the Presidents that followed him, place their hand on the Bible upon taking their oath of office? Oh boy, maybe there's a need for some re-education here.
I Totally Agree
Christianity has been the very essence of America's founding whether hate-crazed atheists like it or not. The very first document that founded our nation clearly recognized the existence of a "DIVINE PROVIDENCE". A very clear indication and recognition of a SUPERNATURAL BEING from whom we derive ALL OUR RIGHTS, and from whom we get the VERY ESSENCE OF OUR EXISTENCE as human beings and as a nation. WHY CHANGE IT NOW?
To say the least, removing Christianity from the anals of our history is tantamount to a BETRAYAL of the very principles upon which this country was founded - an act which can be considered as HIGH TREASON.
The Constitution never stated that we should PUT OFF the candles of every religious movement. It simply declares, that Congress shall not PASS A LAW recognizing an establishment of religion. DID CONGRESS EVER PASS THAT LAW? IT NEVER DID!!! So why cry foul over so called violations over the separation of CHURCH and STATE, when NO VIOLATION has ever been committed -therebeing no existing law recognizing an establishment of religion?
A little MORE reality -- check mate
Interesting that you emphasize minimizing Christianity among our forefathers. I guess "In God We Trust", and the Ten Commandments posted all over Washington DC and all the Biblical references on all the monuments there, and unnumerable references to God and the Bible in all the founding documents, and The Bible being required reading in our schools -- all that must have been...what...typo's?? The blind ignorance and rewriting of our history to sooth your hatred for the very reason America has been so blessed is beyond understanding.
advertisement







