Timothy Shriver says Yes on the Warren Choice. It must be nice to be a member of America’s Royal Family and have access to all sorts of outlets for displaying one’s idiocy. I won’t bore you with all of the details of Shriver’s drivel. You may follow the link and read all of it for yourself, if you are feeling particularly masochistic right now. As for me, I will just focus on some key points of his article.
Remember that Warren has been asked to pray, not to govern. For those who are uncomfortable with the pastor’s views on gay rights or other hot-button issues, that’s an important distinction. When it comes to a new type of tolerance, prayer is a good place to start. Perhaps this choice can be a reminder to us all that prayer has no limits in being able to bring us closer to the kindness and gentleness of the divine. And that’s where we need to go if we have any hope of finding ways to join together despite our many divisions.
Yes, Rick Warren has been asked to pray at what should be a purely civic event, an affair entirely free of religious overtones. As a secularist, I have a serious objection to that fact. It’s worth noting that most American presidents have not invoked any deities at their inaugurations. The first inaugural prayer was uttered in 1933, when a pastor offered a benediction at FDR’s first inauguration. FDR accomplished a lot of good things, but the inaugural prayer was not one of his better ideas. Mr. Shriver, however, believes that prayer on such an occasion will provide a wonderful occasion for bringing together 300 million Americans of disparate beliefs. As for the assertion that “prayer has no limits in being able to bring us closer to the kindness and gentleness of the divine,” all I can say is that bullshit is too kind a label to apply to such nonsense.
First of all, it’s difficult to see how a prayer can realistically unite people who pray to different deities that, as far as I can tell, are perennially at odds with each other (a characteristic that many believers share with their deities, by the way). Secondly, maybe Mr. Shriver’s version of the divine is a kind and gentle being, but many divinities are not. In fact, if Mr. Shriver’s deity of choice is YHWH (as depicted in the Bible, not as reconstructed by believers), I disagree with his characterization of that deity as kind and gentle. Moreover, the fact that this is the unpleasant deity to whom Rick Warren will pray may bother others besides me.
Continuing on, here’s a bit from Shriver’s pen (or keyboard, as the case may be):
Perhaps most importantly, I think the Warren choice is an effort by the President-elect to signal that the message of his campaign will carry forward into his administration: what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us. What better place to make that point than at his inauguration? And what better moment to summon the wisdom of that message than the moment of prayer?
All this points to the truth that we are living in a spiritual age where what matters most is what you’re looking for and not what you’ve found. It’s the spirit that drives us to the seeking and the spirit that will revive within us the hope and confidence to believe in the search.
I would like to think that Shriver and Obama are correct in saying that “what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us.” As a secular humanist, I believe that what unites us is our common humanity. Unfortunately, history has taught us that what often divides us are unfounded belief structures, such as the stuff of which most religions are composed. That is the basis upon which I’d like to answer Shriver’s next two questions: “What better place to make that point than at his inauguration? And what better moment to summon the wisdom of that message than the moment of prayer?”
The answer to the first question is, none; the inauguration is precisely the time and place for Obama to send his message and set the tone for his presidency. The answer to the second question is, there are many moments that would be better, since prayer is a total waste of time. It seems clear to me that the best moment to “summon the wisdom of that message” would be at some point during President Obama’s speech. I anticipate that he will do so and the invocation, regardless of who delivers it, will be entirely superfluous.
Shriver’s references to “the truth that we are living in a spiritual age,” “what matters most…” and “the spirit” that “drives” and “revives us” are hilarious. They’re thoroughly empty and unproven, but they have the ring of fine rhetorical flourishes. I beg to differ with his assertions. Notwithstanding Shriver’s faith positions to the contrary, what we’ve already found is of supreme importance, as it is the foundation for all that yet remains to be discovered. Moreover, what drives humankind to further exploration are our own innate curiosity and the very real challenges that living, thriving and surviving in an indifferent environment present to all living beings. Spirits and supernatural beings have nothing whatsoever to do with human endeavors.
Shriver goes on to say,
I thank him for selecting someone who disagrees with him on some issues, but agrees with him that the most important issue is the search for purpose and justice and mercy. Just read The Purpose Driven Life.
After reading that paragraph, I can’t help wondering whether Shriver has actually read Warren’s book. I have, and my finding was that it has plenty to do with finding God’s purpose for one’s life and almost nothing to do with finding justice and mercy, particularly as those concepts apply to social and political matters. Warren’s book is perfectly suited for feeding Christian narcissism and little else.
Moving on – bear with me, we’re coming close to the end (as readers heave deep sighs of relief) – we find this:
No matter what name we call our religion, the shared faith of virtually all religious people is in a being who transcends any name. If people of faith believe any one thing, it is that we are each created by a compassionate God, that each of us was fashioned with care and love in the palm of divine light. In other words: each of us is a center of value.
Even if you don’t agree with Rick Warren on everything, people of faith–and people of no faith too–can agree on that.
We are created by a compassionate God who “fashioned us with care and love in the palm of divine light” – yet has consigned the majority of the world’s inhabitants – those who, for mysterious reasons known only to the deity in question, have not been fortunate enough to be among the Chosen – to eternal condemnation. I continue to be astounded that any religious believer can hold this pair of beliefs in the same mind at the same time. Then again, what do I know? I’m still trying to figure out what the “palm of divine light” is (to be honest, it just sounds like more rhetorical flourishing to me).
I do agree that believers and nonbelievers alike can agree with the notion that “each of us is a center of value.” Where we differ sharply, and consequently veer onto widely divergent paths, is with regard to the source of that value. Religious adherents believe that value is bestowed upon humankind from a deity. Nonbelievers believe that human value is shaped by humanity itself. We don’t need to look to a deity for guidance, sustenance or worth. Instead, we can – indeed, we must – look to ourselves and each other to solve the problems of life and to treat each other with the dignity that is due to all.
In closing, I will say that, realistically speaking, it would be political suicide for Barack Obama to dispense with prayers at his inauguration this year. In the current political climate, such a bold move would be a quick road to a one-term presidency. Moreover, given that he is a believer himself, Mr. Obama may not have a personal disdain for the practice. What I would like to see, should Mr. Obama be re-elected in 2012, is that the current controversy would prompt him, at that more opportune time, to discard a practice that was poorly conceived at its inception, will grow increasingly outdated and divisive over time, and is not amenable to the spirit of the Constitution that he will soon be promising to uphold on behalf of all Americans. Should that happen, then maybe, just maybe, the selection of Rick Warren as an inaugural participant this time around will have been a good thing.
– the chaplain
I noticed this equation on a church sign as I drove to work this morning. Now, I’m not a mathematician (a fact that the deacon will gladly verify), but it seems to me that this equation does not say what I assume Christians want it to say. As I read this equation, I see it saying that Jesus is the sum or product of all of the factors above the line. I thought the Christian message was that Jesus is the source of peace, joy, love and hope, not the result of adding (or multiplying) those things together. When I add those factors, I don’t get Jesus as the answer.
