Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.14UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.53LIKELY
Fear
0.16UNLIKELY
Joy
0.55LIKELY
Sadness
0.57LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.69LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.05UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.91LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.76LIKELY
Extraversion
0.73LIKELY
Agreeableness
0.78LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.79LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
FIRST PERSON - Religiously correct prayer: The secular left goes
berserk
By R. Albert Mohler Jr.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.
(BP)--As expected, the inaugural ceremonies for
President George W. Bush opened and closed with prayer.
Unexpectedly, the prayers have ignited controversy and unleashed
a firestorm of histrionics from the secular left.
Franklin Graham, evangelist son of Billy Graham, and Kirbyjon
Caldwell, a leading Houston pastor, had the temerity to pray as
Christians -- even invoking the name of Jesus Christ.
Are you
shocked?
Is this not what President Bush had in mind when
inviting these persons to pray?
Is this not what we should expect
from two Christian ministers?
Evidently not, so far as the watchdogs of secularism and
political correctness are concerned.
The leading salvo came from
Alan Dershowitz, the vituperative law professor from Harvard.
Dershowitz was outraged by the prayers and accused the Bush
administration of subverting the Constitution.
There can be no
"official sectarian prayer," Dershowitz avowed.
"That is what the
1st Amendment is all about, the very first act by the new
administration was in defiance of our Constitution."
Prayer in defiance of the Constitution?
Well, rally the militia
and unleash the ACLU!
Can Dershowitz mean to be taken seriously?
It would appear so.
Furthermore, he represents a growing
antagonism to all genuine religious expression in the public
square.
First, let's set the record straight.
The prayers offered by
Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell did not constitute any
state establishment of religion.
They prayed as Christians ought
always to pray, and their prayers followed in a proud inaugural
tradition.
Given the outcry from Dershowitz and company, you might think
that Jesus had never been invoked in an inaugural ceremony.
This
is hardly the case, as prayers in the name of Jesus have been a
staple of inaugurations past -- including the inaugurations of
John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Billy Graham has been a
participant in such ceremonies for decades, and no one is
surprised when he prays in Jesus' name.
The sad fact is that for some time the secular left has been
attempting to eradicate all genuine religious expression from
public life.
According to the legislators of political
correctness, it is allowable only to offer "non-sectarian"
prayers.
Of course, a nonsectarian prayer is not a prayer at all.
Several years ago, the National Conference of Christians and Jews
(in keeping with their desire to be nonsectarian, the group is
now known only as "The National Conference") suggested guidelines
for praying in public.
Such opportunities call for general
prayers, according to the guidelines, and allow "persons of
different faiths to give assent to what is said."
Accordingly, there is no mention of any God in particular.
The
group suggested alternatives like, "Our Maker" or "Source of
Being."
Suggested closing phrases included "Hear our Prayer" or
"May Goodness Flourish."
To that we would suggest, "You must be
kidding."
These suggestions are an equal insult to all religions.
A
Christian ought to pray as a Christian, whether in public or
private.
The same is true for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists,
Unitarians or any others.
Prayer to a general deity is an offense
to faith, and calls for "non-sectarian" prayers betray a
misunderstanding of prayer itself.
Professor Dershowitz holds to a rather extreme view of the
Constitution, but to a downright bizarre view of prayer.
Does he
really believe that a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim and a Buddhist
can join together in the same prayer?
The Buddhist does not even
believe in a personal deity.
Dershowitz's fervor on this issue is especially perplexing, given
the fact that he identifies as a Jew by tradition, but as an
agnostic in belief.
What kind of prayer would complement his
agnosticism?
Perhaps a prayer to the non-existent God.
A Christian minister who prays non-Christian prayers betrays the
gospel.
A Jew should be expected to pray as a Jew, and a Muslim
as a Muslim.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9