.....Looks like I'm not the only one peeved about Rick Warren/Saddleback Church's handling of tickets for Saturday's Obama/McCain forum. (See our It's the old Saddleback Church shuffle.).....The OC Register just posted about the anger that it has inspired (Saddleback ticket distribution angers some):
.....When...26-year-old [Greg Burger] found out about the John McCain-Barack Obama forum at Saddleback Church this Saturday, he did what a lot of people did: He checked the church Web site as often as he could to get the most up-to-date ticket information.
....."I knew my only chance to receive tickets would be to act fast," Burger said.
.....For the past couple of weeks, the general public had been told via the church's Web site that ticket information would be forthcoming.
.....Then last week, the message changed and said a limited number of tickets would be available this Wednesday. Monday night, the message was revised again, saying all tickets had been distributed.
.....The switcheroo left many people like Burger feeling like they were deceived.
.....You bet. Nobody likes a switcheroo.
.....And what about those absurdly high ticket prices ($500 for the cheap seats)?
.....According to the Reg, "The high prices raised eyebrows."
.....Warren had better get his act together. Soon, he's hosting an event with former British Prime Minister Tony B. Watch 'im mess that up too.
25 comments:
Back when I was a kid I'd pay a couple days pay for cheap seats at a rock concert. I was poor so I only went to a handful (Dead,Floyd,Mac) but $500 is about 2 1/2 days pay today for me so Warrens show is pricy but not much different than 35 years ago.
It all relative.
TB, this is not a concert. Rick Warren is attempting, he says, to improve public discourse, etc. He seeks to promote a more "civil" political debate/discourse (and I applaud him for that).
As he says this, he arranges this forum, and then, weeks in advance, he tells the general public that an announcement will be made about tickets.
At this point, the public has every right to suppose that, since this event is a kind of experiment in how political discourse should proceed, the tickets will be free, as they almost always are for debate-discussion events.
Given all of this, here are the ways that Warren could have screwed up: (1) he could announce that tickets are not available to the public after all (only the faithful are invited); (2) he could charge for tickets beyond what would seem to be necessary to pay for expenses.
He screwed up in both ways. Each screwup undercut his blarney about establishing a higher form of public discourse.
He could have spared himself much trouble by realizing from the beginning that his experiment would have to be done in stages, at first including only his congregants. That would have been reasonable.
Google "Jib Jab" and watch their latest "campaign" video.
Warren is just another sideshow in the political circus. Politics is also show business. So's religion. Expecting Warren to not be all about the Benjamins is asking him to act out of character. Sorry, but I have become horribly numb. Maybe it's a phase I'm going thru.
As you know, Roy, tickets were available to the public. You had no "right" to free admission for this event. Pastor Rick charged admission the first time Obama came to speak at the Church for AIDS Conference, also billed as "a more civil political debate/discourse". $2 million was needed, minimum, for the digital video equipment required for press access, per the campaign rules Do you know how much the "real" Commision on Presidential Debates charges their venues to host those events? If you didn't want to pay $500, fine. But don't lie about any switcheroo. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
10:11, you accuse me of “lying” about a “switcheroo.” It was the OC Register who referred to the Church’s “switcheroo.” See. So I guess you’re calling the Reg a “liar” too. Lying is the deliberate, knowing statement of an untruth. Do you know that I (or the Reg) have deliberately stated an untruth? You certainly don’t. But you say it anyway. How very Christian of you.
I never denied that the Church has a "right" to charge for tickets. Evidently, you seem to think that the Church need not defend that confusion that it created with its endlessly morphing announcements.
And, for your information, I never had the opportunity to acquire a ticket, Not even if I wanted to pay the $500. After being strung along for two weeks, I was informed that all tickets had been distributed.
You need to read more carefully. You also need to issue accusations more responsibly.
It's an acquired taste, but I love it when atheists criticize Christians by Christian moral standards. I am not being sarcastic.
If 10:11 falsely accuses Roy of lying, Roy lets 10:11 have it by 10:11's own Christian standard of "not bearing false witness." There is something absolutely beautiful about that.
Roy's criticism involves all of the following: Roy is right; 10:11 is wrong; 10:11 gets held accountable to his own moral standard and is (hopefully) disabused of hypocrisy by an atheist. (Showing a bond and possibility of dialogue between an atheist and a Christian based on their common humanity and rationality.) (Roy apparently hates it when writers use parentheses, but Roy does stuff that I don't like too, sometimes.)
An atheist takes advantage of a Christian moral standard to correct a Christian, so that the atheist improves the Christian, making him better and more careful as a Christian; as the atheist at least points out the inconsistency between the Christian's morality and the Christian's behavior, there opens a little tiny window for the atheist to see that there is also something good about Christians having high standards that may be good in themselves, standards that may be useful for more than hypocrisy-sniffing by the atheist, so there is an implicit opportunity for evangelism.
Two more things:
1. Before Roy sends me running to his "Why Morality..." article on CP, let me point out to Roy, "without a shred of evidence" (Roys likes to say that to me in response to my comments) that Roy--or Roy's morality--is just like Tolstoy's flower: (to crudely and heavily paraphrase): Morality is like a flower. A STUPID PERSON(Roy talks about Stupid people a lot, and sometimes accuses me of being stupid.) (As if I would deny it! If I thought I were smart, I wouldn't come here to learn!)...
As I was saying, a STUPID PERSON, looking at the flower, sees the beauty of the flower but doesn't see the roots, and fails to appreciate the necessity of the roots for the beauty of the flower. So the STUPID PERSON pulls the flower from the ground, and shows it to everyone saying, "Look! Flowers don't need roots! Those stupid ugly roots! Any good Humean Empiricist can see that the flower is just fine!"
Of course, within a few days, the flower withers and dies.
Tolstoy's point, for all of you who live in Rancho Cucamonga, is that morality has religion as its roots. We all know about Roy's personal history from reading DtB: his rich background in his family and his community helped make him the wonderful, interesting, and beloved person that he is.
Religion was part of that, by Roy's own testimony. Now he has torn himself from his roots. I don't know how long the "beauty" of the "flower" can last: maybe 10, 20, 30 years in Roy's life. Maybe it could last for one or two generations after Roy. But what Roy got from his family, community, and childhood religion--his sensitive, thoughtful morality, chock full of implicit Christian values like justice, kindness, compassion--is severed from its roots by Roy's rejection of religion, and it won't last forever, to the detriment of us all.
2. If you want to understand much of history as well as the contemporary "culture wars," keep this pattern on non-Christians criticizing Christians according to Christian morality in mind. Virtually everything Christians have done wrong in history, and do wrong today, is correctable by more strictly applying Christian morality to the situation, from the Crusades, to the 49-ers abusing CA natives, to someone like me or 10:11 saying something out of control on Roy's own blog.
Roy, I invite, encourage, and beg you to keep holding Christians to our own moral standards. Our religion demands that we be perfected in charity, and we need all the help we can get. If we are humbled by an atheist, sometime Hater of God catching us being vicious and morally inferior to the Sometime Hater of God, that's OK with us. The pain and humiliation is quite good for us; it is our teacher. You keep up that good, sharp hypocrisy-sniffing, and we will all grow morally together. An atheist can certainly be ahead of me morally, and I will accept his help to get caught up.
At some point, though, you should become a Christian yourself. That has been the goal of all of my many comments on your two blogs for the last several weeks. You are definitely "on my prayer list."
After all, Jesus became a little baby, born into complete poverty, just for you. Think of that baby, our God and Redeemer, lying there with his young mother and the animals (you like animals) just for you, because he and his father and his mother love you. Maybe mentally contemplating that scene you will soften your heart a little.
Gee Chunk Do you KNOW that the evil Bush actually lied about WMD's? That Bush deliberately stated an untruth? Maybe he just did what he was told and read it off a teleprompter, no lie at all. It's just a terrible misunderstanding. He just parroted what others told him. Until Bushco kicked the sh*T out of Saddam there was no way to know that Saddam wasn't hiding a WMD program. After all the UN oil for food program was corrupt so why not the weapons inspectors?
I was kinda hoping you'd drift into this. Grin.
Now you'll predictably go on another tirade that'll rival Michael Savage (its those rants of his that made me tune him out...it was like listening to a dog bark, jeez louise!).
1:30, 1st, unsurprisingly, you entirely ignore my points: it was the OC Register that (accurately) described Saddleback Church's announcement follies a "switcheroo." (Of course, I agreed with them.) That if one accuses X of lying, one accuses them specifically of intentionally saying something that is false. 10:11 had zero grounds for that accusation, as you must know. Further, contrary to 10:11, I at no time denied that SC has the "right" to charge for tickets. Of course, they also have the right to engage in "switcheroos" or, say, to setting fire to effigies of Roy Bauer.
As for your last email: I advise you to look up "the genetic fallacy." (Genetic as in "Genesis.") Upshot: it is a mistake to confuse a thing with its origins. That is why, when I am in the mood to refute, say, chiropractic or homeopathy, I do not bother to point out that the originators of these philosophies were cranks (which is certainly true for the former; arguably true for the latter). For, though they were cranks, the practices with which they are associated might work all the same.
I am happy to acknowledge that my (and your and, for a great many around us, "our") morality might best be described as "Judeo-Christian." What follows from that? From a logical point of view, virtually nothing follows from that--certainly not that whatever validity this morality possesses rests upon the validity of Christianity or Judaism, both of which bear the influences of many traditions that preceded them (Zoroastrian, etc.).
Essentially, you assert that Christian morality without Christianity will somehow collapse. You can say it, but since the claim is by no means self-evident, you had better argue for it. You have not done so. Hence, your remarks are insubstantial.
Asserting is not arguing, my friend.
Surely you are aware that there are innumerable instances of non-theists who have fought heroically for justice (etc.) throughout their lives. Do I need to cite examples?
For what it is worth, when I think of the people at our college who have been involved in the fight against Mathur and his associates all these years (I shall leave it to others to judge whether the risk they took to lose their jobs was heroic), not one of them is a theist. Each one of is in truth a non-theist.
Re my calling certain people "stupid": you seem willing to join 10:11 in throwing about ungrounded charges. Exactly who have I called stupid? Think.
I believe in moral clarity. When voters cannot locate Iraq on a map; when they continue to believe that Saddam was involved in 9-11 despite all information to the contrary; when voters embrace oft-refuted canards about a candidate's religion--they deserve to be called stupid. They are in a kind of STUPOR. They are NOT THINKING. In a democracy, such persons, when in large numbers, are a threat to the well-being of society. And they certainly cannot be counted on to fix what needs fixing.
TB, as usual when you have not a leg to stand on, you obscure the poverty of your argument with irrelevancies and non-sequiturian shifts from irony to non-irony. You make yourself a hard target to hit at the price of incoherence.
I must say that, if, at this point—assuming you read the papers, watch the news, etc.—you are unpersuaded that Bush and Co. deliberately misled (yes, lied to) the American people, then you suffer from an impairment of your faculties that no discussion on a blog can correct. Are you a Flat-Earther as well?
Further, you seem to fall prey to the sophomoric fallacy of supposing that “knowledge” (or confident belief) requires absolute certainty. Well, it doesn’t, not in the sciences or anywhere else (outside the a priori sciences). The question is: given that information that is available to us, is it reasonable to continue to assert that Bush (Cheney, et al.) were honest with the American people with regard to WMDs (and related matters)?
Clearly, the answer is no. And you know it.
Geez Chunk (What happened to Chunk?), how come these guys get the constructively critical end of your stick, and all I get is non-accredited college credit from your, now bunk, establishment?
BS, I've been trying to phase out "Chunk" for quite some time, for I just don't see any advantages in maintaining a pseudonym. But you can always call me Chunk anyway. You have earned the privilege.
Have I distributed my critical onslaughts unevenly? I am not aware of it, but I would be happy to know it if it is true.
All of these blogs are unaccredited, I'm afraid, although there are some who view membership in "Dissent World"--and you are certainly a member; even that knucklehead TB is a member--as more prestigious even than attending Mas Hayashi's math classes at IVC!
I am filled with pride to think of it.
Roy,
'...1:30, 1st, unsurprisingly, you entirely ignore my points: it was the OC Register that (accurately) described Saddleback Church's announcement follies a "switcheroo." (Of course, I agreed with them.) That if one accuses X of lying, one accuses them specifically of intentionally saying something that is false. 10:11 had zero grounds for that accusation, as you must know. Further, contrary to 10:11, I at no time denied that SC has the "right" to charge for tickets. Of course, they also have the right to engage in "switcheroos" or, say, to setting fire to effigies of Roy Bauer.
As for your last email: I advise you to look up "the genetic fallacy."..."
Not surprisingly, given your comment format on DtB, it is possible to mix up our anonymous "voices."
I am the author of 1:30PM, and I am not the author of 10:11AM. You seem to think that we are identical. We are not even so much as a tag team.
I thought I was clear in saying that you were right in rejecting 10:11's accusation of lying against you.
As for the philosophical stuff: Western Greek/Roman morality, BC (or BCE), was all about loving your friends, harming your enemies, and doing nothing to injure your own interests. What is good in our civilization could not be grounded just on that. Greek morality was a great start, but is radically underdeveloped compared to the best morality we have seen. We will indeed slide back to relatively selfish and brutal pre-Christian Greek morality, or something worse, if you and yours are successful in secularizing our culture, "tearing the flower from its roots."
I know a little bit about the Genetic Fallacy, but don't see the relevance of that fallacy here. I will think about it. In the meantime, you spend a little time thinking about the Infant Jesus. (You cannot hate him, can you?, even if many of his followers have let you down?)
Roy,
You are a blogger, and know how to run a blog. I am not and do not. My other blogger friend, though, tells me that "anonymous" posts are not really anonymous to the BlogMaster. Surprised, therefore, that you seem to have conflated two different comment-makers.
I posted at 10:11 AM, and Roy is lying about not having the opportunity to acquire a ticket to this event. I posted the link Tuesday.
8:21 - that comment is kind of ambiguous. I think I might know what you're alluding too though. Blogger (this specific blogging site) doesn't seem to keep track of anonymous poster's IP addresses (i.e. as far as I know), or anything that would even allow the BlogMaster to keep track of you.
Sir Chunk Of Wheelerton can't be blamed here.
Knucklehead? Hey! I highly represent that remark!
snark![insert grin here]
8:16, sorry about any confusion. It’s hard keeping track of all the people with the same name!
I suspect that I speak for most philosophers (for what that’s worth) when I suggest to you that it is naïve to view differing historical “moralities” as though they were dishes on a shelf to be assessed and evaluated. What and where is the criterion (scale, standard) relative to which they are to be assessed? If I’m comparing the differing sizes of rocks, I have a way of comparing them against one weight (or mass or volume) scale. But just what are we talking about when we assume there to be such a standard for “moralities”?
Ethicists/philosophers have not arrived at an adequate answer to that question. Some have adopted the view that, evidently, there is no such scale, a view that is sometimes called “metaethical relativism,” which is not to be confused with more popular forms of relativism (according to which moral truth is relative to culture, etc.). I suspect that MR is correct.
If you study contemporary ethics, I think you’ll find that there are MRelativists who nevertheless argue (without contradicting themselves) in favor of the “objectivity” of moral values. That is, there are ways of rejecting subjectivism while also rejecting your kind of absolutism.
I hope this is at all comprehensible. As for baby Jesus, I like kids. Got nothing against ‘em.
You attribute to me a goal of secularizing the culture. I have no such goal. I would prefer to say that I wish to promote reasoned discourse, and I do not prejudge where that will take us. I certainly have no desire to destroy others’ faith. As I often tell my students, if you can manage to embrace reason and yet embrace God, then you certainly should continue to believe in God. I’m a conservative guy. I don’t recommend sudden radical change for anybody.
As for you, 8:54, you are, at best, a knucklehead. You are assuming that I used the link that you posted on Tuesday. I didn’t even try it. By Tuesday, I had become fed up with Saddleback Church’s bumbling and was not about to waste my time further, having gone back to what appeared to be the church’s official sites several times only to get a runaround (as I explained previously) or further announcements of some future ticket availability.
I do not appreciate being called a liar. You owe me an apology.
8:21, as it turns out, I do not know how to distinguish between the various “anonymous” bloggers. I suspect that I could figure it out, but I prefer my old school approach of just going by what people write. Except for today, that hasn’t led to much confusion. I do wonder sometimes why so few people are willing to put their name to their thoughts. I really don't get it.
I will not apologize for telling the truth. You said "i never had the opportunity to acquire a ticket". You just admitted you had the link to purchase said ticket (regardless of any justification you think you had, you missed said opportunity and therefore lied about that). Had you said "I heard opportunity knocking but didn't answer the door" that would, at least, have been the truth.
9:05, do me a favor. Get a dictionary, stand in front of a mirror, and then look up the word "solipsist." Then go to your computer and remove "DtB" from your bookmarks.
No thanks; sorry if you think the distinction between "truth" and "lie" is meaningless. But, I guess that still depends on what the definition of "is" is, right?
Bill Schneider on CNN thought it was a "remarkable breakthrough moment" in this campaign.
Hello! What I find ironic is that if Rick Warren is supposedly a devout fundamentalist "Christian" then isn't he supposed to be doing these deeds like having this forum for the "Glory of God," (well, his version of it)? Well, from what it seems like to me by all the coverage I saw on CNN (Larry King Live), Fox Noise, and some other stations he seems to be doing it more for the glory of himself, Rick Warren, and his over the top ego. Of course he's loving every minute of this, but as I said, it seems like he's doing this as a "See me? I'm sooo important." No, this guy is not a Billy Graham. Gee, if McCain wins is Warren going to be administering the oath of office to him instead of the Chief Justice John Roberts?
2nd, I also agree w/Roy, this isn't a rock concert. This is a church that is over pricing tickets so only their wealthy congregation can attend, & get their responses on camera to their right-wing views. I also don't see where it is that Roy's lying either b/c it's blatantly right out there in front of people. At least to me it was pretty damn obvious about what they were doing. Believe me, I tried to give Warren the benefit of the doubt, but that idea went south on Sunday.
Well, correction, I gave Warren the benefit of the doubt until Friday. As I said, to me it just seemed to be more for the glorification of him. You know, this guy is milking this for all it's worth like going on this media circuit w/"Larry King," "Fox Noise," etc. No, IMO not even Billy Gramam is this pompous.
Post a Comment