General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInsulting Invocation
Most of the attention has been rightly focused on President Obama's Inaugural address. It was both spiritual and progressive, and had strains of Lincoln's Second laced throughout. (As a student of rhetoric, I try to pay attention to these things.)
The other speeches - Schumer's and Alexander's - (leaving aside delivery issues) were well placed.
But the invocation, specifically, the end was a jarring insult to all non-Christians and did not belong. In a day devoted to diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness, it was unnecessarily sectarian, a breach of civility (and the First Amendment), denigratory and discriminatory. It was the religious equivalent of "separate but equal," and had that approach been used in another context or reference to other groups, there would have been an outcry.
The invocation should have been vetted. The mind set represents a stain on the proceedings.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)FUCKING OUTRAGED!
And even worse, not one single nod to Anton LaVey!
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Enjoy yourself.
garthranzz
(1,330 posts)to exclude Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and atheists?
Really?
Change the context, and use language that excludes Blacks or Asians or Gays.
Enjoy your one-handed self-absorbtion.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)"...let us act upon the meaning that everyone is included." Where does that exclude ANYONE of ANY faith or non-religious affiliation? How do you interpret that as somehow exclusive of "Blacks or Asians or Gays" or any other race or culture that you failed to mention? Should I suspect you of being non-inclusive of Hispanics because you failed to mention them in your comments? Of course not!
onenote
(42,499 posts)The statement that I take it bothered you was her inclusive invocation of "Jesus’ name and the name of all who are holy and right."
Seems like you're the one that is excluding people.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Especially considering the high dudgeon.
People who get SO MAD about "religion" are always aiming their ire at the xtians in USA. The arguments they make are entirely based on a bias towards xtianity, I believe.
They don't even try to understand the religious traditions of other faiths, so they can get ANGRY at them, too!
Do they actually think that Muslims regard the imams in their mosques as unholy, or "not right?"
Are not Buddhist monks and Hindu sadhus also called "holy men?"
And I guess they don't see that the invocation at that inaugural was all about the civil rights movement, and the PERSONAL expression of a laywoman who lived the times (FWIW, the widow Evers is NOT a minister or reverend or anything of that nature--in fact, she is a CHURCH SWITCHER....oh, the horror! Yes, she doesn't stick to any one church, she mixes it up!). So much for trying to paint the woman as a doctrinaire and a leader of a particular, dictating, religious hierarchy!
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)a stain?
jpak
(41,755 posts)
Hekate
(90,495 posts)Give it up. There's already an ugly and contentious thread or two started before the crowds had even dispersed, and you could chime in on those. Much swooning and pearl-clutching by a few -- but they got lots of attention at the time.
garthranzz
(1,330 posts)I was careful to cordon off the objectionable element.
There was one part of the invocation, a side-speech, that I found offensive and out-of-place. All the more so, now that you tell me the minister is from a gay-affirming church. I did not state anything ugly. Contentious? Perhaps. But when an invocation in a secular context, whose theme is yet shared faith, excludes all but one faith community and one form of worship, I think it's worth objecting.
This is not "swooning." Proselytization, even veiled, is worth discussing. So is lack of sensitivity.
Give it up? Really?!? So should you "give up" being offended by racist, sexist, anti-gay attitudes or remarks that exclude or demote a particular group?
Why is it not allowed to post a negative reaction or an objection?
MADem
(135,425 posts)She isn't a priest, she isn't a nun, she isn't a rabbi.
She is the widow of Medgar Evers, a slain civil rights activist. She has NO religious affiliation or pedigree.
She is a CHURCH SWITCHER. She mixes it up, and isn't married to any one faith.
The benediction was from Luis Leon, who performs gay marriages at St Johns, the Church of the Presidents, in WA DC. He is a Pedro Pan child-immigrant from Cuba, who grew up here without his parents in a foster home. He has been an Episcopalian all his life, since his childhood in Cuba.
I think you've stepped in it a bit, here. You are doing a lot of complaining and you do not appear to have your facts in order.
You need to quote -- "......" -- exactly what was "bugging" you. This is easily done--the transcripts ARE available and people have linked to them.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)make the rules on what threads can be started? Good to know where one must go to get permission
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Luis Leon, Episcopal Priest, gave the 'benediction'.
Hekate
(90,495 posts)and made my comment about her in it.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)Long ago,I gave up church for good reasons.
Some of the rhetoric gave me the creeps
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)who says what someone is going to take offense to what a preacher said. I didn't think what he said was so offensive. I am sorry you felt offended. Remember many many on the right didn't agree with anything starting with the swearing in til the end. So like I said some are going to be disappointed.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)of the inauguration ceremony, I got sick of the church atmosphere and services a long time ago.
dballance
(5,756 posts)It would have helped if you had done that in the OP.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)the creepiest part was calling out Jesus Christ 'our' savior.
So damn presumptuous and arrogant.
You want a fictional character to save you from something, knock yourself out, but please leave me out of it
dballance
(5,756 posts)In fact, I can't even find the word "Christ" in any transcript. What inaugural were you watching?
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)The one you missed
dballance
(5,756 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)anyone that disagrees is a troll to some 
dballance
(5,756 posts)We didn't have an exchange where we offered differing opinions - a debate of sorts. So there was no "agreeing" or "disagreeing." You simply offered up a quote that no one at the inaugural said as a straw man at which to be offended and I pointed that out. That just makes you dishonest.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)the prosecution, judge and jury has spoken
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Bake
(21,977 posts)As requested.
Bake
lynne
(3,118 posts)By Myrlie Evers-Williams. Transcript here> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/myrlie-evers-williams-gives-invocation-at-president-obama-inauguration-full-transcript/2013/01/21/325e7726-63f3-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html
It would be good to show a link to whatever was offensive so others could read it. You reference "the end" being specifically insulting. Are you referring to the final line of "In Jesus’ name and the name of all who are holy and right we pray."
peace13
(11,076 posts)"In Jesus’ name and the name of all who are holy and right we pray." When I heard them at first , my eyes popped but then I realized that she was nodding to all symbolic 'holy' deities. I thought is was a good way to be inclusive. The rest of the 'prayer' was clean of any direct link to a specific Deity.
My inner god is thankful for the mention! : )
lynne
(3,118 posts)- for everything symbolically holy and right. Inclusive in the respect that - even if you don't believe in Jesus or in any religion - you would still have a reference to what you believe is "right".
Seems to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. She attempted to include everyone and some were still offended.
Hekate
(90,495 posts)... people and/or beings other than Jesus in "the name of all who are holy and right." 
I can see now how all the atheists, rationalists, nonbelievers, and unbelievers who massed together in their millions and sponsored and led the Abolitionist and Civil Rights movements in this country could feel hurt and left out by the singing of an Abolitionist anti-slavery pro-Union hymn and by the invocation given by a Christian woman who has given her entire life to the cause of Civil Rights in this country (not to mention witnessing the cold blooded murder of her husband in the driveway of their home).
Yeah, I've got it now. I personally feel crushed now that I understand. 
sadbear
(4,340 posts)I've read the transcript. It seems relatively tame. (Does she even say god in it?) Perhaps you can post the offending part?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)He presumably is a person of (some) religion, but Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. He didn't seem to be put off by it. He chose all three people (including the Greek Orthodox priest at the luncheon) who gave prayers.
When listening to such prayers, whether you are a person of no faith or a faith that does not recognize Jesus as a part of the idea of God, one must certainly be sophisticated enough, and tolerant enough, to translate the principles and thoughts expressed into one's own general spiritual, moral, and ethical ideas.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)ever put off by Christmas and other high religious Christian holidays. I learned that there are plenty of Jews who even have Christmas trees but obviously don't celebrate the religious meaning behind the holiday. I always found it fascinating because they understand that they practice a religion that is not practiced by a majority in this country. They're used to it. And I think you're right: they're sophisticated enough to understand and apply their own religious interpretation to these prayers.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)my own experience is that, yes, it grates a bit from time to time that everything is so Christian-oriented in this country ... but I (along with, I assume, many Muslims, Hindus, and others) recognize that we are a distinct minority, and we respect that the majority has the greatest cultural impact. Jews are less than 2% of the country and shrinking. We have never had a Christmas tree ever, we do not do anything for Christmas ... though we are generous in giving gifts and greetings to those around us who do celebrate the holiday. I will always be Jewish in my cultural and even spiritual identity. It is my "tribe" and my people.
As a child things were somewhat harder. I loved being in the Christmas program at school, loved seeing the trees and decorations. But I remember being very concerned when we had to sing a song that specifically referenced "Christ." I was afraid "my" God wouldn't like this. I was in the school chorus, and to allay my concerns, I used to mouth those words but not sing them. I thought if I didn't actually say the word it was okay, but I had to fit into my surroundings. Funny, what we do as children.
PCIntern
(25,454 posts)in this matter.
Even to not uttering certain words when signing certain carols in grade school.
Of course, I sang masses and cantatas which were highly religious in high school. It was great...
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)onenote
(42,499 posts)I'm not a fan of prayers that seem to exclude rather than include. The invocation at the inauguration, with its reference to "In Jesus’ name and the name of all who are holy and right" seemed inclusive and didn't bother me.
As for Christmas pageantry in school -- as long as one isn't forced to participate, I have no problem with it. As I have often said, if my faith is so tenuous, so lacking, that it is threatened by hearing a song about Jesus in a manger, then the problem isn't with the song.
There are lines. For example, in high school (public), I had an English teacher that assigned the class the New Testament as a reading assignment. Even though she portrayed it as literature assignment, I thought (and still think) it was inappropriate. On the other hand, I have no problem with my state funded university offering classes in religion or literature in which one is required to read a religious text so long as they are not mandatory courses.
MADem
(135,425 posts)a little less angst-inducing.
Of course, you could have always substituted the name of someone else in there...."Oh come let us adore him...Sienfeld the Lord!"
It's interesting to be a minority, be it an ethnic, religious, cultural or gender one. It's not always easy. I always say that which does not kill ya will make you stronger...and if not stronger, at the very least, smarter!
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It was about the divinity aspect, that he was the "son." Judaism is incompatible with that kind of idea.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When the Russkies killed off their Royal Family and buried 'em in a big unmarked hole, a lot of people came out of the woodwork in Europe and the US who said they were the children of the Czar.
Most people didn't really believe them, but they jollied them along anyway, because they were interesting characters.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
srican69
(1,426 posts)you need to take a chill pill.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)and not tell other posters what to swallow
srican69
(1,426 posts)Be the change you wish to see in the world - Gandhi said.
Nothing in that invocation was provocative. Yes it referred to a God different from one's faith - but so what?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)...and want Christians, especially, to be more tolerant and inclusive, we can't shut them out, too because we may be offended in the display of their faith. Inclusivity, tolerance works both ways.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)not mine. I don't call it faith. I call it fraud
You want to practice that, do so away from government.
Nope not tolerating any more. The fundies and right wingers made that decision for me
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" The fundies and right wingers made that decision for me..."
That may then be the fundamental problem; if we allow others to choose for us, if we allow others to define what is or is not, if we allow others to decide how we ourselves perceive a thing, we have then decided to allow others to think for us.
You may of course believe that all members of group X are precisely the same, but the very nature of humanity denies you that premise regardless of whether you agree with it or not. I may believe that 3+3=5 because my maths instructor was a horrid person, but at the end of the day, 3+3 does not in fact, equal 5, despite my righteous protestations to the contrary.
Open your eyes to the person-- religion, politics, philosophy, art, and all the other man made constructs we allow to run our lives on a daily basis which all exist no where but our own imaginations, are merely but a small measure of the person en toto.
Or maybe you are simply frustrated in the here and now and are venting visceral emotions. I do that in my journal, others do it on DU. That's all well and good also.
onenote
(42,499 posts)Without a doubt, some, even many, religious people have too long denigrated those who choose not to believe in a diety or to have or engage in any religious beliefs or activities. That sort of intolerance is wrong and decidedly at odds with progressive values. But so too is intolerance and belittling of people who choose to adhere to a religious faith.
The problem as I see it is that you do not merely object to those that are intolerant of your choices. You look down on anyone who makes a choice different from the one you make. You make no bones about expressing your disdain. You display an attitude that suggests you believe you are superior to those that choose to make religion part of their lives, implying that such people are less evolved than you. That sort of arrogance turns people off. Bad things have been done and still are done in the name of religion. But so too are good things. There are very good people who are religious adherents -- many very good progressive people. I've met them in anti-war groups, in civil right groups, in working for social justice in any number of respects. Insulting them is wrong. And from a purely political standpoint, its boneheaded.
The Democratic party is a big tent. And it needs to be a big tent. Some of its most important groups include African Americans and Latinos that, as a whole, tend to identify themselves as religious people in greater numbers than the population as a whole. It also includes Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians, members of various other Christian denominations, Muslims, and pretty much every other religious affiliation. The repubs talk about their "messaging" problem with some groups, particularly Latinos. Well, we will have a pretty fundamental messaging problem too, if people of faith feel like they are being belittled by other Democrats.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I ...no...longer...tolerate...fraud
Just like I never tolerated anti-women, anti-minority and anti-gay assholes,
I ...no...longer...tolerate...fraud of the religious type.
You want to practice the nonsense? Fine, do it away from government ..in private
Blather about it around me and I will tell you, religion is used by criminals to cover crimes. It is used by bigots to rationalize their hate agenda of others.
You say you are not them? You donate money to them...you commiserate with them...Don't kid yourself.....You are them
onenote
(42,499 posts)You admit to being intolerant. You say it is of fraud and the fact that religion is used by criminals to cover crimes and by bigots to rationalize their hate agenda. But in the classic move of a bigot, you then stereotype ALL people of faith as frauds and equate them with "anti-women, anti-minority, and anti-gay assholes."
In short, you have managed to characterize as assholes and frauds millions of loyal Democrats and strong progressives. You have labelled as frauds and assholes people who have done more for bringing peace and equality to society than you ever will. People like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Bobby Kennedy, the Berrigans, and the list goes on and on. You have labelled a very very large number of people on this board as frauds and assholes.
You, sir or madam, are the antithesis of a progressive. You, sir or madam, are simply another reactionary pretending to be better than everyone else. You are the worst possible representative for the Democratic Party.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)You promote and harbor bigots and criminals
onenote
(42,499 posts)then I plead guilty.
As for your accusation that I promote and harbor bigots and criminals, name one that I have "promoted and harbored." I don't dispute that there are bad people of faith. But, unlike you, I am able to distinguish between people who do good things and bad things rather than simply tar them all based on their religious belief.
The difference between us is that I am able to respect and admire people of all faiths and of no faith based on what they do. You, on the other hand, can only hate.
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)I happen to believe in a higher power as a choice for myself and I do not expect others to believe what I do. But it's hard for me to understand the outrage because if I happen to be at a ceremony that does not mention God at all, it doesn't offend me. Tolerance is important in a diverse society. I understand the whole "seperation of church and state", but my ancestors came to America from the UK so they could practice whatever religion they wanted without persecution - and when I say persecution, I mean people were killed for their religious beliefs. The monarchy would decide to force their people to begin believing in a different religion from the one they've known - or suffer greatly if they refused. The vision for America was to get away from all that, people could worship freely, or not worship anything.
People were killed back then. Getting upset over a few religious words at an inauguration (or no religious mention if it ever happens in the future) seems awfully silly to me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)who are invited by POTUS to fill the "benediction" slot aren't allowed to deliver their personal message at his inaugural ceremony?
Maybe we should all get together and write the inaugural poem, too-- so the poet doesn't say anything we don't like?
I go for limerick style rhyming myself....can I get a witness?
peace13
(11,076 posts)America, we are here, our nation’s capital, on this day, January the 21st, 2013, the inauguration of our 45th president, Barack Obama. We come at this time to ask blessings upon our leaders, the president, vice president, members of Congress, all elected and appointed officials of the
United States of America.
We are here to ask blessings upon our armed forces, blessings upon all who contribute to the essence of the American spirit, the American dream, the opportunity to become whatever our mankind, womankind allows us to be. This is the promise of America.
As we sing the words of belief, “This Is My Country,” let us act upon the meaning that everyone is included. May the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of every woman, man, boy and girl be honored. May all your people, especially the least of these, flourish in our blessed nation.
One hundred-fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation and 50 years after the March on Washington, we celebrate the spirit of our ancestors, which has allowed us to move from a nation of unborn hopes and a history of disenfranchised votes, to today’s expression of a more perfect union.
We ask, too, Almighty, that where our paths seem blanketed (ph) by throngs (ph) of oppression and riddled by pangs of despair, we ask for your guidance toward the light of deliverance and that the vision of those who came before us and dreamed of this day, that we recognize that their visions still inspire us. They are a great cloud of witnesses unseen by the naked eye, but all around us, thankful that their living was not in vain.
For every mountain, you gave us the strength to climb. Your brace (ph) is pleaded to continue that climb for America and the world.
We now stand beneath the shadow of the nation’s Capitol, whose golden dome reflects the unity and democracy of one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Posted in: Myrlie Evers-Williams, Myrlie Evers-Williams Delivers Inauguration Invocation, Myrlie Evers-Williams Invocation Transcript
quinnox
(20,600 posts)reference to GOD. 
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Jews, Muslims and Hindus? You do realize that Atheists are a very small minority in this very religious country, don't you?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)They asked where does it even mention God in the text, so I pointed out it seems to do so because "Almighty" is a well known alternative way of referring God, or a supreme being.
Yea, I know that atheists are a small minority. So?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is about? That G-d was mentioned? This is a very religious country and while I have my questions about a deity, unless someone is shoving their religion down my throat, I really couldn't care less. I saw several postings yesterday from people who think any mention of G-d and religion is bogus even though they (I assume) voted for a man who is a professed Christian.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)But yea, a lot of atheists seem upset about all the religious stuff that went on yesterday. There have been numerous threads about it, and while I'm not an atheist, I can see why they would have a beef with it.
peace13
(11,076 posts)they still deserve respect. That being said, I thought the invocation was universal enough.
peace13
(11,076 posts)What is God? Is it inner light, positive thought? A common thread between mankind? It may be Jesus or Ala or Zeus. You fill in the blank in your head. If you do not feel energy or light or the existence of any connection to the universe then obviously you need to not listen to this woman's words. The whole idea was a prayer of some kind. You direct it where you want it to go.
I am a former Lutheran, now observer of the universe. I don't like the words, God bless or in God we trust mixed in with my government. That being said . I feel that the speaker yesterday was trying to be as universal as possible.
MineralMan
(146,241 posts)However, that's to be expected in an invocation. I can give a good non-religious invocation, and have done so on a number of occasions, but I'm not particularly offended when an invocation includes religious references. I'm an atheist of longstanding, but I can let such invocations slide past my consciousness without difficulty. And that's just what I do. We live in a country that has a religion followed by a large proportion of our population. So, religious sentiments are often expressed in public and ceremonial gatherings.
None of those force me to worship anything. None of them carry any weight at all. I do not believe, so I do not bother with them. Ceremony like a presidential inauguration will always contain some sort of religious content. It would be silly to expect otherwise. Just let it pass over you and ignore it, like most non-believers do and like most followers of religions other than Christianity do.
There is no potential for harm in such words. They are an expression of belief that is shared by large numbers of our fellow citizens. Just shrug and let them pass. They will do you no harm.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I couldn't help but think that if this was their biggest complaint, the President is in good shape.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)don't let them bully you.
There are some here who would knock you to the ground and cut your hair
There's a great hash tag on twitter called #thingsthegodlysay. It's hilarious. Check it out
garthranzz
(1,330 posts)The responses are revealing. People are offended that I was offended at a religiously exclusionary coda at a public event. I referred specifically to the END of the invocation. (The ending marred the rest.) That only I found insulting and offensive. I know others did not. (Someone mentioned Schumer - how does the poster know what Schumer thought?) (Apparently, the remark was not in the transcript (not in the one posted in the thread).) But I think reference to a particular religious creed in a public context is inappropriate and intimidation. If she had said, "in the name of Zeus and anybody else out there..." perhaps people would get the point. (Check your euphemisms.) To me, it's a form of bullying. Others weren't bothered by it; I was. It was unnecessary. The difference may be experience or sensitivity.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)and doing what they do, which is calling any dissenting view, a troll
So Jr High.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,111 posts)And for all she has been through and done, she could sing 'Jesus Loves Me" and I wouldn't care. Her faith has led her to be open and accepting of all. She will not damn you to hell for not believing or believing differently.
That is the religious person I have no problem with.
goclark
(30,404 posts)
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Civil Rights Activist.
Chairwoman of the NAACP.
Husband murdered because of his race.
Helped to coordinate civil rights protests.
Set up voter drives.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)
annabanana
(52,791 posts)countingbluecars
(4,766 posts)Stirring up trouble with hopes that Rush or some Rush type will use their post as an example of liberal thought.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)America, we are here, our nation’s Capitol on this January the 21st 2013, the inauguration of our 45th [editor’s note, should be 44th] president Barack Obama. We come at this time to ask blessings upon our leaders, the president, vice president, members of Congress, all elected and appointed officials of the United States of America. We are here to ask blessings upon our armed forces, blessings upon all who contribute to the essence of the American spirit, the American dream. The opportunity to become whatever our mankind, womankind, allows us to be. This is the promise of America.
As we sing the words of belief, “this is my country,” let us act upon the meaning that everyone is included. May the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of every woman, man, boy and girl be honored. May all your people, especially the least of these, flourish in our blessed nation. One hundred fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation and 50 years after the March on Washington, we celebrate the spirit of our ancestors, which has allowed us to move from a nation of unborn hopes and a history of disenfranchised [votes] to today’s expression of a more perfect union. We ask, too, almighty that where our paths seem blanketed by [throngs] of oppression and riddle by pangs of despair we ask for your guidance toward the light of deliverance. And that the vision of those that came before us and dreamed of this day, that we recognize that their visions still inspire us.
They are a great cloud of witnesses unseen by the naked eye but all around us thankful that their living was not in vain. For every mountain you gave us the strength to climb. Your grace is pleaded to continue that climb for America and the world. We now stand beneath the shadow nation’s Capitol whose golden dome reflects the unity and democracy of one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Approximately four miles from where we are assembled the hallowed remains of men and women rest in Arlington Cemetery. They who believed, fought and died for this country. May their spirit infuse our being to work together with respect, enabling us to continue to build this nation, and in so doing we send a message to the world that we are strong, fierce in our strength, and ever vigilant in our pursuit of freedom. We ask that you grant our president the will to act courageously but cautiously when confronted with danger and to act prudently but deliberately when challenged by adversity. Please continue to bless his efforts to lead by example in consideration and favor of the diversity of our people.
Bless our families all across this nation.
We thank you for this opportunity of prayer to strengthen us for the journey through the days that lie ahead.
We invoke the prayers of our grandmothers, who taught us to pray, ‘God make me a blessing.’ Let their spirit guide us as we claim the spirit of old.
There’s something within me that holds the reins. There’s something within me that banishes pain. There’s something within me I cannot explain. But all I know America, there is something within. There is something within.
In Jesus’ name and the name of all who are holy and right we pray. Amen.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts) 
union_maid
(3,502 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)First woman and layperson to give the invocation at the inauguration
Was Chairwoman of the NAACP
Civil Rights Activist
chillfactor
(7,570 posts)you blabberiing fools have nothing else to do with your lives but whine and complain about NOTHING?
you remind me of a troll........ nothing more...nothing less.....just here to in-flame
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)#things the godly say.
Response to garthranzz (Original post)
Iggo This message was self-deleted by its author.
randome
(34,845 posts)For someone calling for inclusion, you seem to forget that the majority of Americans do consider themselves religious. I don't but I have no problem with people expressing their feelings. It's the intent that matters.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)That one and the poet were the best things except for President Obama's speech, which was awesome.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)if this thread ain't some fly-paper!!
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper"
EINSTEIN: BELIEF IN GOD "A SILLY SUPERSTITION"
For more--http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message548870/pg1
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
qanda
(10,422 posts)The 45th President which is clearly not the case.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
nolabear
(41,926 posts)I'm an atheist but have deep respect for the warm regard that is represented by asking one's most treasured icon of goodness and power to smile upon another. It must feel in some way terrible to be made angry by being triggered by a lovely invocation of all good things for this country and her people.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I detest that smarmy declaration.
'I'm so blessed to have this or that or to have survived this tragedy'
Indeed the poor slobs that lost this or that or died, weren't 'blessed' but obviously...damned 
nolabear
(41,926 posts)To be blessed is to be wished the best, to hope that fate shines upon one, that luck plays in one's favor, that the ineffable whatever goes well. A blessing is a smile and a feeling that one should thrive and have good things. Many people who've lost this or that or died were "blessed", they just lost something or died.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)That's how people use it. It's vile
nolabear
(41,926 posts)OwnedByCats
(805 posts)in his speeches many times. Does that offend also?
JI7
(89,233 posts)and feel like a martyr. the OP is saying they were offended by something said which wasn't actually said.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Was how in the OP, the person stated that he/she was a "student of rhetoric" or some such thing, and tried to say that the offending language was actually in a "side speech" of her remarks.
A side speech?
I'm sure sure what a "side speech" is, to tell the truth. Is that something like a sun porch?
Some student...
ipaint
(3,270 posts)and think enough is enough.
"We pray that you will bless us with your continued presence, because without it, hatred and arrogance will infect our hearts."
I wish religious leaders would preface the "we, us and ours" with "those of us of faith". If religion is going to take a front and center role in our civic ceremonies the least they could do is acknowledge the existence of americans of no faith who certainly do not have hearts brimming with hatred and arrogance.
And good for Myrlie Evers-Williams for leaving "under god" out of her last line-
"We now stand beneath the shadow of the nation’s Capitol, whose golden dome reflects the unity and democracy of one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
A bit of progress.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It goes back to an old idea that saying "I" all the time came off as selfish and personally self-aggrandizing. It is a self-deprecating manner of expression, frequently used by people in public office or in positions of leadership. In other languages, using the "we" form is considered more POLITE than using the "I" form, which can sometimes come off as barking an order--it all came out of that.
He isn't saying "We Christians are speaking to the rest of you rubes" he's saying "I (as an Episcopalian pastor wearing the collar and holding the job of shepherd to a flock) pray that you will bless us...."
It's a literary device.
BlueIndyBlue
(96 posts)was objectionable to you but the Benediction given by the Episcopal Priest wasn't. Hmmm....something in that milk ain't white.
INVOCATION 1a : the act or process of petitioning for help or support
b : a calling upon for authority or justification
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invocation
BENEDICTION 1: the invocation of a blessing; especially : the short blessing with which public worship is concluded
2: something that promotes goodness or well-being
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benediction
Below is the full text of Episcopal priest Rev. Luis Leon's benediction delivered at the presidential inauguration on Jan. 21, 2013.
Gracious and eternal God, as we conclude the second inauguration of President Obama, we ask for your blessings as we seek to become, in the words of Martin Luther King, citizens of a beloved community, loving you and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
We pray that you will bless us with your continued presence because without it, hatred and arrogance will infect our hearts. But with your blessing we know that we can break down the walls that separate us. We pray for your blessing today because without it, distrust, prejudice and rancor will rule our hearts. But with the blessing of your presence, we know that we can renew the ties of mutual regard which can best form our civic life.
We pray for your blessing because without it suspicion, despair, and fear of those different from us will be our rule of life. But with your blessing, we can see each other created in your image, a unit of God's grace, unprecedented, irrepeatable (sic) and irreplaceable.
We pray for your blessing because without it, we will see only what the eye can see. But with the blessing of your blessing we will see that we are created in your image, whether brown, black or white, male or female, first generation or immigrant American, or daughter of the American Revolution, gay or straight, rich or poor.
We pray for your blessing because without it, we will only see scarcity in the midst of abundance. But with your blessing we will recognize the abundance of the gifts of this good land with which you have endowed this nation.
We pray for your blessing. Bless all of us, privileged to be citizens and residents of this nation, with a spirit of gratitude and humility that we may become a blessing among the nations of this world. We pray that you will shower with your life-giving spirit, the elected leaders of this land, especially Barack our president and Joe our vice president. Fill them with a love of truth and righteousness, that they may serve this nation ably and be glad to do your will. Endow their hearts with wisdom and forbearance, so that peace may prevail with righteousness, justice with order, so that men and women throughout this nation can find with one another the fulfillment of our humanity.
We pray that the president, vice president and all in political authority will remember the words of the prophet Micah, "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness and always walk humbly with God?"
Señor Presidente, señor Vicepresidente, que Dios bendiga todos sus días. Todo esto lo ruego, en el más santo nombre, Amén.
Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, may God bless you all your days. All this we pray, in your most holy name, amen.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/rev-luis-leon-benediction_n_2527051.html
Myrlie Evers-Williams didn't reference the exact WORD God once in her text but the good Reverend did, more than once and additionally in Spanish, but her speech insulted you enough to post that OP? So when will you post the companion OP protesting an actual minister giving a benediction using the exact WORD God?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)inclusion in the line 'in the name of all who are holy and right' for that does not just draw other great teachers or leaders into the circle, because many who are holy and right are just people living their lives, fighting for justice, loving their friends and families, these things are what each of us wishes to keep holy and sacred in our lives.
