So now there's also a "post-inaugural prayer service at National Cathedral"...

[Silent3]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/50548092/

...the Obamas and the Bidens are attending.

The praying and the god-bothering just go on and on, don't they?

Hey, I'm happy that Obama won. I didn't get so worked up about all of the religious trappings that I shut off my TV or anything melodramatic like that. I mostly very happy with Obama's inaugural speech.

I'm fucking delirious that it wasn't Romney up there giving a speech.

But if anyone can't see how the heavy ceremonial emphasis on religion, especially Christian religion, is a smack in the face of separation of church and state, can't see that it marginalizes non-believers, that "It's the President's day!" only excuses so much for what is also a day (or two, apparently) that belongs in large part to the public... that strikes me as a bit of willful blindness.

There aren't just a few nods to believers here and there, there isn't just a bit of the President making his own faith part of the proceedings -- the whole inaugural process is steeped in religious invocations and religious symbolism and religious ritual.

Don't let me forget to close with: "God bless you all! God bless the United States of America!"

[Buzz Clik]

1. It does not annoy me.

I'm just glad I don't have to go.

[stopbush]

106. My prayer for today: I pray all these prayer services would stop.

[hrmjustin]

117. The President has the right to go to a church service.

this has nothing to do with the Gov't. They are just praying for him and the country. It can not hurt. The Inauguration prayers you have a point about. That is Gov't and should be reconsidered(it won't be).

[leftstreet]

2. Maybe all these rich politicians feel guilty?

[Botany]

3. A prayer service @ the National Cathedral?

OMG call out the Army, Navy, Merchant Marines, 4H, and the Sierra Club!

[Silent3]

7. I'm not at all *shocked*

I'm quite accustomed to the current level of disregard for the separation of church and state.

That there even is a thing called the "National Cathedral" is part of the problem, even if it isn't the slightest bit shocking that, being that it does exist, prayer happens there.

That the President and the Vice President have to make a big public deal out of going back and doing even more ceremonial praying the day after the inauguration is also another non-shocking problem for me. It it's only about them expressing their private religious beliefs, I think there would be a much less showy way of doing that.

[longship]

19. Isn't that the same kinda thing as Reagan National Airport?

Of course, we have a national library as well, the Library of Congress. I will put the archtecture of the aptly named Jefferson Building (he founded it) of that institution against any other in DC. It is a beautiful and wondrous place -- a cathedral of learning.











It is a must on any tour of our nation's capital city. It is fucking beautiful.

[Botany]

61. It is a beautiful building and close to Rock Creek Park too

[teenagebambam]

33. About the National Cathedral -

its proper name is Washington National Cathedral (named after George Washington, as it was his desire to establish a National house of prayer for all citizens) and it is administered by the Episcopal church. It is funded entirely by private donations and receives no Federal money (other than the tax breaks that all churches get)...so it is not quite "THE National Cathedral" in the sense that I think you meant.

I worked there during Bush's second term and attended his Inaugural worship service - there were not only Christian worship leaders but also Jewish, Muslim and Native American leaders. I can only imagine that Obama's will be every bit that inclusive. (Yes, I know, inclusive only of the religious.)

[hrmjustin]

81. With all due respect we have the right to call our Cathedral whatever we want.

The president has the right to go to church as well. I understand your dislike of mixing religion and politics, but they have the right to go to church. Our Cathedral is the seat of the Bishop of Washington and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. It is the home church of all Episcopalians/Anglicans in this country. It is not run by the government, but by the Episcopal Bishop of Washington. We get no government funding for any Episcopal Church. I Do not understand why you would be shocked by our church.

[CAG]

108. +++++

[PoliticAverse]

4. It's apparent that Obama's team decided to take the religion issue from Republicans

by outreligioning them. Yesterday was incredible.

[Silent3]

11. It might be a useful strategic maneuver...

...but if so, it's sad that it's an effective one, that so many people seem to need having their religious sensibilities stroked and celebrated over valuing secular ideals and showing more respect for non-believers and believers of other faiths.

[Phillip McCleod]

129. i think this is it with a ribbon and a bow.

[riderinthestorm]

35. +1. Incredible. And incredibly religious. Today the govt+religious symbolism show continues... nt

[hooverville29]

53. Sure. Would be good to shorten prayers & limit them to a religious message.

Too often at these occasions, they become just another speech, and that happened yesterday, too

[hrmjustin]

82. He went to church, that is all.

[quinnox]

5. They always say that at the end of speeches

All politicians. As if God favors the United States or something, as if God backs us. I hate that. It makes people stupid, and makes them think whatever we do as a nation, it probably is divinely sanctioned, so it must be right. Because why would God steer us wrong?

[forestpath]

6. K&R There are no phonier words to me than "God bless the USA!"

[countingbluecars]

8. It's a tradition that dates back

a long time. You really think Obama should buck that tradition? Give me a break.

[JohnnyLib2]

24. Good point. The ramifications would be metastatic....

cue the birthers and "he's a secret Muslim" folks.

[Phillip McCleod]

130. good idea cave on this easy thing.

gotta save our strength for the hard stuff.

[lunatica]

9. I don't feel marginalized

Since I believe my non-religious thoughts are deeply personal. People can't help what they believe in or not.

[MineralMan]

10. Let's see: Obama's a Christian and attends church with his family.

Joe Biden is also a Christian and I assume he does the same.

This service is nothing official. It is a service for the President, Vice President, and their families, along with whomever else attends.

It doesn't compel anyone in any way. You are not required to attend, nor are you required to pay any attention to it at all. In fact, it imposes nothing on you or anyone else.

I'm an atheist, and have been since 1965. I recognize that our Presidents and other officials may well have religious beliefs, as do a sizable proportion of the country's population. Why would I be bothered with their attendance at this religious service? What does it have to do with me at all.

I believe you are stretching the separation of church and state to the breaking point. If the President is a religious man, I don't mind if he attends a church service. Why do you?

[Silent3]

13. It's big, public, televised, scripted, choreographed event...

...not merely the President and Vice President taking a moment to acknowledge their faith. Yet again some more.

[MineralMan]

18. Turn your television off.

I won't be watching this, although I watched the Inauguration, as I do every four years. The religious content of those bothers me no more than similar content at funerals and weddings I attend. It has nothing to do with me.

If you are offended by such things, simply turn off the television or watch some other channel. That's what I'll do.

You are aware, are you not, that the National Cathedral is not supported by any tax dollars? It's a private facility, funded by donations. It has nothing to do with government, except for being located in our nation's capitol.

[Silent3]

71. So if the President decided to make a big part of his celebration...

...attending a private mens-only club, would that be fine with you, as long as it was paid for by private dollars, and you didn't have to watch it on TV?

Or would the non-inclusive spirit of that suddenly bother you?

[hrmjustin]

87. That is not what he did.

He just went to church.

[Silent3]

89. So what does it matter that that's not specifically what he did?

The person I responded to expressed in their post that any problem I had with the inaugural ceremonies could be solved by (1) Turning off my TV, and (2) recognizing that the part I objected to wasn't paid for by tax dollars.

If those two points are relevant then my hypothetical situation should be no more or less objectionable. If you find the hypothetical objectionable, then those two criteria are lacking in merit.

[hrmjustin]

118. I am not saying your arguments have no merit.

I think you honestly believe them. I also think that we may agree on a bit more than we think. I think there is way too much religion mixed in with politics. I also think that the number one reason that people dislike Christianity is Christians. The second is they just don' t think it is true. I think you should raise your voice on the issue of prayers at the inauguration. You make good points on that. the Church thing today to me was harmless. The real problem is when RW Christians try to make there beliefs the policy of this gov't.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. And you can turn off the TV.

No one is required to pay the least bit of attention to this service.

And that's why the First Amendment is not violated by these kinds of events. The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent the United States from having an official, government-supported and -sanctioned church, as in England at the time. The Church of England was essentially an arm of the state, and for a time even had the power to conduct trials and imprison and execute people for certain offenses such as heresy. The men who wrote the Constitution, having seen first-hand what can happen when a particular religious sect is an agency of government (persecution of other religions, corruption, all manner of nastiness), wanted to be sure that the government would not officially support any particular church, and that the people would be free to practice whatever religion they wanted.

The result is that the government can't favor one religion over another by supporting any church with government funds. The court decisions have held that the government must avoid "excessive entanglement" with religion, which is why all religions are equally tax-exempt. But there is nothing in the First Amendment or the cases interpreting it that prohibits government officials from having voluntary prayer or other religious services, or otherwise publicly professing their religious beliefs. I'm not crazy about it, either, but nobody is requiring me to participate, so I don't feel in the least aggrieved by it.

And the Constitution survives.

BTW, the National Cathedral is nominally Episcopal, but was designed years ago to be a church for services of national consequence (state funerals, etc.). Despite its name it is not government-funded, which would be unconstitutional.

[kwassa]

125. National Cathedral is not nominally Episcopal, it is enthusiastically Episcopal.

We Episcopalians are just very open-minded people.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

128. That's true. It would have been more accurate to say

that the National Cathedral welcomes all faiths. The Episcopal Church, despite its WASP-y origins, has become quite socially liberal (I used to go to an Episcopal church, back when I went to church). And their music is better than just about anybody's.

[onenote]

52. So was JFK's funeral and the funeral of most former presidents in the "television" era

I also recall watching portions of Ted Kennedy's funeral service. These events are televised not because anyone requires it to be televised or because they are official state events, but because some television networks think that there is enough interest among the viewing public to warrant putting it out there.

[MADem]

63. I don't like football-should I throw a pissyfit if the media covers Obama attending a football game?

That's a big, public, televised, scripted, choreographed event too.

How about the Kennedy Center honors? Obama showed up at those, too--big, public, televised, scripted and most definitely choreographed.

You need to pick up your remote and exercise a little mature self-discipline if you see something on your Tee Vee that displeases you.

[MrsMatt]

99. hell yeah.

I'm not into football either.

[hrmjustin]

83. Every Episcopal Church event is scripted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. ERMAHGERD! A prayer service at a cathedral!

Is anybody making you attend? Or making you watch? If not, how are your rights being trampled? I'm not a believer, either, but frankly I don't give a damn if other people go to church -- even the president. Like Thomas Jefferson famously said: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Most Americans profess some kind of religious belief, mainly Christian. So let them do it, even publicly, even as part of a public event, as long as they don't require me to do likewise.

The only religious people who get under my skin are those who attempt to use the power of the government to enforce or prohibit behavior because of their religious beliefs. Otherwise - a post-inaugural prayer service at a cathedral is absolutely no skin off my butt. Really, there are bigger fish to fry. Not worth getting heartburn over.

[Silent3]

14. Way to miss the point.

See post #7.

[Lisa D]

15. Thanks for that great Jefferson quote!

I intend to use it often

[leftyohiolib]

25. agreed . i use that jefferson quote alot - i think the key phrase in what you said was

"as long as they don't require me to do likewise". if they start praying pull out your cell phone and check your email

[sadbear]

16. Just another way for our elected leaders to divorce themselves from governing.

God is control, after all.

Take the wheel, Jesus. We're tired of driving.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. And that's exactly why this has no place in government. n/t

[hrmjustin]

85. That is not what is happening with our president, or at that service.

They prayed for guidance and strength. We have to make the decisions not Jesus.

[leftyohiolib]

17. saying prayer in a public space doesnt violate the "separation between church and state"

it neither endoreses a religion thru law nor does it, thru law, prohibit one

[Paladin]

20. Why Don't You Save All That Outrage For Things That Count?

It isn't as if there aren't plenty of battles for which progressives need to prepare themselves. Squandering your energy on traditional ceremonies which don't register with most people is wasteful.....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. Amen (so to speak)

I have often said that the most easily persecuted and easily offended and easily threatened group on Earth must be conservative Christians. What with their "War on Christmas" and "War on Values" and "War on the Traditional Family" and all that. But I'm about to change my vote and award the "Mirror Ball Trophy" to some of the atheists on this board. I've never seen a group of people so easily offended and so prone to full-throated whining.

I'm being marginalized! Waaa!! Waaa!! Obama did something I don't like! Waaa!! Waaa!!

Who the hell cares?

And my apologies in advance to the atheists and agnostics at DU who have the admirable ability to simply shrug and say "Yeah whatever" and get along with their lives. I am certainly not directing this at you.

[Paladin]

26. Nicely Put. (nt)

[leftyohiolib]

28. +1

[cherish44]

94. Thank you!

well said

[Silent3]

32. So how much energy do you think I used on this post?

I have plenty of "energy" to go around. I worked on the local campaign for Obama and other NH democrats, going door-to-door canvassing.

What a stupid fucking idea that if you complain about one thing you aren't putting energy elsewhere.

[Paladin]

51. I Gave My "Pick Your Battles" Talk To My Teen-Age Daughters, As Well.

Like you, they didn't particularly like it at the time. But they came around, because it was (and is) good advice. Scattering your outrage about dilutes the force of it when it is most appropriate. Why court a reputation as a hothead? But like I say, my kids didn't think much of the advice when it was originally offered, so as far as I'm concerned, you're in good company.....

[Silent3]

55. The energy to post a little online is minimal...

...and it's hardly oh-so-wise parental advice to recommend not only focusing one's outrage, but complete tunnel vision on a narrow set of issues.

Besides, I think separation of church and state is a big issue. The problems of the inaugural aren't a major part of it, but they are symptomatic as far as I'm concerned, and worthy of mention.

Sorry to be so "hot headed"!

[appleannie1]

27. No one is forcing you to watch.

[NCTraveler]

29. "is a smack in the face of separation of church and state"

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

No it does not. What shocks me is the complete lack of understanding with respect to "separation of church and state".

A prayer service at a national cathedral. Ohhh no. A Christan President wants there to be an invocation. Ohhh no.

There was no nationally authorized prayer that anyone was forced to recite or listen to.

[Silent3]

37. The OP makes it clear that I'm talking about way more than this one prayer...

...service.

And what does whether or not anyone is "forced" to attend or watch have to do with this?

Suppose a racist won election, and there were only white people to be seen anywhere during the inaugural festivities. So long as it was merely what that President wanted, since people wouldn't be forced to watch or attend, would that suddenly erase all complaints about the exclusionary message being sent?

Yes, my example is more extreme than the analogous reality, but the fact that the elevated position of religion is the inaugural isn't so extreme doesn't erase my point.

Inclusiveness for non-believers is sorely lacking, and not solved by non-believers quietly ignoring all of it.

[NCTraveler]

62. Your op brought up its constitutionality.

"Yes, my example is more extreme than the analogous reality, but the fact that the elevated position of religion is the inaugural isn't so extreme doesn't erase my point."

Your point was that it was an intrusion on the separation of church and state. It is not. I don't even know where to go with your racist example.

"Inclusiveness for non-believers is sorely lacking." I fully agree with this point. It should not be necessary to have all of this religion at the inauguration. It is pathetic that politicians feel the need to do so. It is pandering and is not inclusive.

"and not solved by non-believers quietly ignoring all of it." Once again, I agree. It's just that non-believers should use more obvious points. Not incorrect ones like the false statement that it is unconstitutional. And that is how I read it when you said it is a slap in the face to the separation of church and state. That is a constitutional term.

[Inkfreak]

30. How has the Prez's religious views affected you policy wise?

I myself care nothing for religious ceremonies. But I haven't seen anything from him that would lead me to believe he'd lead from the pulpit in some way.

[Nye Bevan]

31. Oh noes!!!!!! Will the butthurt never end?????? (nt)

[Silent3]

34. Kneejerk reaction which totally misses the point...

...of the OP. And you seem curiously fixated on "butthurt".

[lamp_shade]

36. ofercrissake... go back to bed.

[gateley]

38. I think I heard MSNBC say this has been a tradition since George Washington --

[Silent3]

40. And so?

Lots of traditions aren't good traditions, and we do sometimes recognize that, end or change some traditions because of that.

[gateley]

48. So I view it as harmless. Maybe it's meaningful for those who attended. I don't have to watch

(and as a matter of fact, didn't).

It isn't as though Obama dreamed to score among the religious-leaning.

Give him a break.

[onenote]

49. The tradition of people who want to attend a church service the day after Inauguration Day

attending that service is a bad tradtion? Why?

[WilliamPitt]

39. BREAKING NEWS: Religious People Attend Church Service!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Silent3]

43. And you really think I'm expressing shock at religious people attending church?

Really? That's what you think the OP is about?

And if you're smart enough to realize it's something other than that, why roll out a stupid decoy retort?

[MADem]

66. Sure sounds that way. Not shock, really--more like IRE.

You're griping that the cathedral is named NATIONAL, as if tax dollars are paying for it (they aren't).

You know nothing about the history of this event, which dates back to the first President of the US.

You're coming across as immature and lacking in knowledge on this topic, bluntly. You appear to be fishing for poutrage, and you're not getting any.

Turn. Off. Your. Tee. Vee. That will solve your problem.

Your "anti-choice" POV on the topic of religion is coming across as intolerant.

I have no desire to go to church with or without the Obamas--that's why I didn't watch the festivities. For those that get a kick out of that kind of thing, more power to them. Leave them to it and go about your business.

[Silent3]

70. And if there were a dearth of women featured in the inaugural celebration...

...you'd call pointing that out "ire"? Would you be fine with the part of the celebrations taking place and a mens-only club, especially if that was "a tradition"? Tell people it's not sponsored by the government itself, so it's OK, just turn off your TV if you don't like it?

Or would that be different?

[MADem]

72. That's a bit of a reach, since there was not a dearth of women featured, now, was there?

You're trying to marry apples with oranges there, and it doesn't work.

No one was excluded from attending the ceremony because of their faith or lack of same. No one was forced to testify to any "beliefs." No one was ordered to pray, or convert, or leave or not be allowed in if they failed to so do -- and to pretend that there is any potential equivalence, with your "excluding women" example is terribly, mendaciously disingenuous.

There were portions of the inaugural coverage I found dull and dumb. So what? I wasn't the one being sworn in, was I? Not every attendee has to like every single aspect of the ceremony. Some didn't care for the music. Others didn't like the poet. Still others didn't like Scalia's choice of headgear.

It is impossible to please EVERYONE. If fifty to seventy percent of the people liked most of what they saw, that's a good day. You were not being denied any "rights" and to pretend you were is just untrue.

[Silent3]

73. How hard do you work to miss the point?

The fact that a dearth of women is a hypothetical shouldn't make the point I'm making that big an effort to grasp, and it doesn't make this apples/oranges either.

A dearth of women speakers wouldn't have meant women weren't allowed to attend, would it? It would just mean that the women attending or watching on TV would feel less well represented... and rightfully so.

You could, of course, just respond, "tough luck, you can't please everyone!" to that situation, but I doubt you would -- unlike when other issues are the subject of who feels included or not, where you obviously find saying "tough luck" easy, comfortable, and natural.

[MADem]

77. No need to get rude and shirty, now. Your point was not taken because it was not valid.

I didn't see any Muslims or Buddhists up on the dais--should they be annoyed and feel left out? Never mind that the guy being sworn in isn't Muslim, or Buddhist. Or atheist--but never mind that.

I didn't see a single bricklayer, or garbageman up there either--and damn few children--just two, and one was a tween and the other a teen. Where was the representation of infants and grammar schoolers? Have they been deprived of their representation because they weren't included? And cats--I saw dogs in the parade, but not one damn cat. Should the cat lovers take offense?

You do know that you didn't pay for this ceremony--neither did I. Donors funded it, and a Joint Committee put it together.

You--or I--or the Joint Committee--cannot please everyone. That's life. If you want to play the "tough luck" card, go ahead--go stand over with the Muslims and Buddhists and other "spiritualists," including the ones who don't have a deity-centric faith, who didn't get "their guy" up there, either. That anger you harbor and a couple of bucks will get you a coffee. It won't make anyone see your POV any more clearly.

[Silent3]

78. Yes, Muslims and Buddhists should be annoyed.

Nearly as much as unbelievers their made into outsiders by the general atmosphere of the proceedings too.

[MADem]

79. Funny how they aren't, though.

It's his day, and his faith.

When an atheist is President, he or she can eschew the invocation/benediction in favor of someone hectoring them that they're all gonna die and the worms are going to eat them, if he or she would like. Or maybe go for a rhyming poem. Or a juggler.

Sheesh. Should the people who don't like the folksy stylings of James Taylor, and who instead preferred something a bit more meaty, like say, Meat Loaf, feel as though they've been "dissed" as well?

The ready enthusiasm for atheists to lump all "Christians" together into one borg is a bit amusing, too. Having known a number of military chaplains of varying faiths, I can tell you with confidence that they, and their flocks, can play that "waaah, we're outsiders" game too, if the "other faith" gets too much mic time at an official event.

No matter what Obama does, he's gonna piss someone or some group off. That's why he should please himself and to hell with the rest.

I found that I was able to "deal" with the few bits of the Inauguration that did not provide me with great personal joy and a sense of belonging. Not every aspect of the ceremony made me feel "included." I managed to cope. It can be done, simply by applying a respect for diversity and tolerance of differing views.

[Silent3]

90. Not too long ago not many gay people would have complained about not being able to marry

Funny, huh?

[MADem]

91. I didn't know marriages took place on the inaugural platform.

Expressions of faith in the form of invocations and benedictions do, though.

[Silent3]

95. Again I can't figure out if your outstanding ability to miss a point...

...is deliberate or not.

[MADem]

97. I don't miss a thing--least of all your strained efforts at conflation. nt

[Silent3]

98. If you thought I was conflating marriage with anything...

...then something flew right over your head.

[MADem]

101. You were the one that drew the parallel, not me. nt

[Silent3]

105. The parallel wasn't with marriage, however.

It was with people accepting second-rate status until enough awareness is raised that more people object.

It's like I'm point at something, and instead of looking where I'm pointing, you're staring at the end of my finger.

[MADem]

110. Your "point" pardon the pun--is not taken.

America the Beautiful is a continually evolving nation. The ERA hasn't passed yet, either. Shall we boycott and pout because that hasn't been accomplished?


I'm not sure what you want--you'll probably never get "freedom from religion" no matter how hard you try. If you live in a nation where some people are religious, you're going to bump up against it. You should try living in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt or Iran--then maybe you'd develop an appreciation of what religious freedom and "no religious test" are all about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Egypt

Neither marriage equality nor the ERA have anything to do with the benediction and invocation for an individual taking an oath at an inaugural ceremony.

If someone wants to bless or curse Barack Obama, and the nation he leads, that's on them. It's not your worry, frankly. If you don't like it, don't ever agree to conduct a benediction or invocation at an inaugural ceremony. Don't endorse it with a big hearty Ehhh-Men if you don't like it. Don't bow that head, and if someone says "Let us pray" then just don't oblige them. Why is that so hard for you to do? You'll only be happy if everyone is "like" you and does the things that "you" do and thinks the way that "you" think? Such hubris! Like it or not, we're a diverse nation. I am not afraid of people who are different from me. You are, apparently, otherwise what they do wouldn't matter to you.

If you don't like poetry, check your smartphone for email while the poet is rambling on, or go make a pot of coffee. Same deal. See, there's "no poetic test" in America, either. There's not even a Beyonce, James Taylor, or Kelly Clarkson test.

I must say, it is doubly ironic that you rail on about marriage equality while excoriating religious freedom, when the fellow who gave the benediction the other day--the pastor of that church you're griping about in the OP--performs marriages for couples regardless of their orientation.

No second rate status with him. But then, it's very easy to be prejudicial about people of faith and lump them all into an evil borg--way too many people do that, instead of approaching people as individuals.

[kwassa]

126. National Cathedral marries same-sex couples.

and has ever since same sex marriage was legalized in DC.

and the head of the church in the US is a woman, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schiori.

and the Bishop of Washington is also a woman. Mariann Budde.

[MADem]

134. Great points!

And.... the person who gave the invocation (Medgar Evers' widow) was quite obviously a woman too--AND not a pastor/minister/what have you.

She was the first woman to give an invocation at an inaugural, and the first LAYPERSON to so do, too!

And the guy who gave the benediction? He's an Episcopalian pastor (at St. Johns, the church of Presidents) and he performs SS marriages.

[hrmjustin]

88. If you watched the service you would know there were members of many faiths other than Christianity.

The National Cathedral has a long history of welcoming people of many faiths to worship at the Cathedral.

[Silent3]

92. And if you read what I wrote you would have noticed the word "nearly"

Non-believers are the most left out of all of this, polytheists next, and non-Christians after that, in order of who gets the fewest bones tossed to them amid an overwhelmingly Christian celebration.

[MADem]

96. You weren't even talking about the service--you were complaining about the Inaugural platform in

this subthread.

The ecumenical service was the following day, and had a diverse group of speakers.

If they offended you, watch something else. No one chained you in front of your TV, did they?

[onenote]

113. Are you upset that religious adherents were invited to give a benediction

or that non-believers weren't given the stage to proclaim their non-belief?

[Silent3]

115. I'm bothered there's much of anything pro or con about religious beliefs...

...going on at all. These ceremonies should be mostly grounded in the secular, ignoring issues of faith, with maybe a bit of a personal touch based on the President's beliefs (or lack thereof) and nothing more.

[MADem]

124. The woman who gave the benediction was not even a minister, either.

She doesn't even hew to 'one' church---she's attended different ones (Episcopal, Baptist, what-have-you) down the years.

She was the first woman, and first layperson, to have that inaugural prayer gig.

Her husband was active in the movement with Martin, as most remember (or learned at school). This year is the fiftieth anniversary of his murder. Obama made that choice personally, I understand.

[hrmjustin]

122. I see your point.

We really should be more inclusive. The good thing about the episcopal church is we try are best to be inclusive.

[MADem]

93. He's arguing about the Inaugural platform in this subthread, even though the thread topic is the

ecumenical service (which, as you note, included Hindus and Muslims and others).

It's a bit of a diversionary line of commentary.

[hrmjustin]

116. I agree about the Inaugural ceremony was too Christian based.

We may be the majority religion, but other religions should be invited to give prayers. I know many will say let's just not put them in at all, but we all know that is not going to happen. I did say something like this in the lower part of this thread.

[MADem]

123. Well, the invocation was tied to the Civil Rights Movement and MLK.

The opening prayer was done by (the murdered) Medgar Ever's widow--and she is NOT a particularly religious person. She isn't fussy about what church she attends, she switches it up. She is not a minister, a pastor--any of that. She's just a civilian who sits in a pew on occasion but who does not preach from a pulpit. An activist--she worked to get justice for her husband for over thirty years. Gutsy.

Her selection was appropriate to the day and the man being re-inaugurated. She is an icon and a link to those dark days when MLK and others were in the thick of the battle. I understand that Obama personally chose her, too, so there is that aspect. She was also the FIRST woman, and the FIRST "non clergy" to deliver a prayer at an inaugural. Those are two "inclusive" blocks to check, as well.

The guy who did the benediction was a fast substitute for another guy (Louie Giglio, who had a reputation for fighting against human trafficking) with bigoted tendencies towards gays who was on the marquee to provide a bit of sop to the right ,I suspect, but he got some bad press (deservedly--he had antigay bias that was not well known outside his little circle, I guess) and a substitute was called up. The substitute was of Latin heritage, a Cuban refugee, one of the (early days) "Pedro Pan" kids sent out of Cuba to be fostered away from their parents, in fact, named Luis Leon, who was an Episcopalian pastor from St John's (the Church of Presidents) who performs same-sex marriages.

I think those elements played into that selection--the guy was a three-fer (or more) in terms of inclusion. I doubt POTUS could have found an imam or rabbi or any other religious leader with a resume appropriate to MLK or immigration (with a gay marriage bonus) that "fit the bill" so well.

[OldDem2012]

41. And this bothers you because......??? nt.

[Odin2005]

42. There is PRAYER at a CATHEDRAL? OMG, the horror!!!

[Silent3]

44. You really think I'm expressing shock at religious people attending church?

Really? That's what you think the OP is about?

And if you're smart enough to realize it's something other than that, why roll out a stupid decoy retort? The same stupid miss-the-point retort as a lot of other people?

[Odin2005]

47. I'm an Atheist and find the over-the-top outrage annoying

[Silent3]

50. And my OP was "over the top" to you?

Anything but sitting down, shutting up, and being quiet is over the top?

[Odin2005]

59. Go call the WHAAAAAAAmbulance.

[Silent3]

69. Such provocative insight

How do you do it? Few people could pull that off without coming across as a complete asshole.

[Son of Gob]

114. You certainly didn't pull it off.

[Jenoch]

45. Not that big of a deal.

No one has the right not to see churches, synagogues, mosques, halls, temples, etc., religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation.

[lynne]

46. Glad to see them practicing their Freedom of Religion -

- no one is making anyone go to or watch the post-inaugural prayer service. "Post" = after the inaugural. It wasn't part of the official proceedings. BTW, it's an interfaith service.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/obamas-bidens-to-attend-post-inaugural-prayer-service-at-washington-national-cathedral/2013/01/22/d85c218c-6498-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html

Sheesh.

[hooverville29]

54. Too often these 'prayers' become just another speech. If you're gonna pray--pray.

Nm

[onenote]

57. Yeah, that silly Martin Luther King Jr. should have shut up and prayed instead of doing that speechy

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

sermonizing.

[immoderate]

56. Humans express depth of commitment through tradition.

Our traditions are steeped in primitive religious practices. See the connection?

--imm

[Silent3]

58. Somehow other countries elect secular leaders...

...without layering so much religion throughout the whole process.

Is there something wrong in hoping we would change our traditions? Traditions do evolve, they don't have to be fixed in stone -- otherwise we couldn't possibly be making progress on gay marriage, a welcome update to American traditions.

[immoderate]

64. I agree with you. But this is America.

We lack some of the aspects of advanced civilization.

--imm

[MADem]

65. Which countries? Really, I'm interested in the short list.

I would hope you won't try to shove North Korea down our throats as an example to follow, though.

France, maybe? They wouldn't consult with religious leaders on issues of national law, now, would they?

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/hollande-meets-france-s-chief-rabbi-on-gay-marriage-bill-1.493374

Russia? Surely Putin would toe the secular line....no? http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/russia-religion-law-putin-idINDEE8B203V20121203


How about those crackin' down Chinese? Ooops...they favor religious freedom, too, even though they can get shirty every now and again... http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/china/pro-religion.htm

Surely the Bolivaran Revolutionaries in Venezuela eschew that religion stuff? No?

http://hollowverse.com/hugo-chavez/

And even CASTRO acknowledged (see link above) that he is a "Christian in the social sense."


The bottom line is that most nations pay some degree of lip service to those who choose to follow a religious path.

A half century, a century ago? I'd say you might have something to gripe about. Nowadays, though, religion in politics -- at least when Democrats are running the show--is more about INCLUSION of all groups; not dictating religious practices of one group to the masses. There's a difference.

[Silent3]

67. So now you're going to make the standard...

...not one touch of religion? When I was complaining about our approach being steeped in it? And drag in things other than inaugurations or comparable events?

Did the French President go to a big public prayer service the morning before he was sworn into office? The morning after too? Did his ceremony have convocations and benedictions? Did nearly everyone speaking at his ceremony feel the need to end their speeches with "God bless France!"?

[MADem]

60. Now? Now? Like this shocking event has NEVER happened before? Where have you been hiding??

Why haven't you complained before now?

Do you realize this is an ecumenical event...? The President does not HAVE to attend, you know. It's his choice. That HIS choice--not mine. Not yours.

It doesn't bother me that Obama chose to attend, or Biden, either.

The president and Vice President Joe Biden are taking part in the traditional post-inaugural national prayer service, a tradition that dates back to George Washington.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/obamas-bidens-to-attend-post-inaugural-prayer-service-at-washington-national-cathedral/2013/01/22/d85c218c-6498-11e2-889b-f23c246aa446_story.html



This kind of whining is unproductive and stupid. I would suggest to anyone who doesn't like religion to eschew it.


Where's the doggone unrec button?

[Silent3]

68. I did complain before.

Four years ago.
Eight years ago.
Twelve years ago.

And I never expressed shock, a stupid straw man that a lot of people seem to need to stupidly trot out.

[MADem]

100. You needed to have started your complaining over two centuries ago.

That's how long they've been holding this shindig.

Of course, you'd need to be a Hindu to do that--they recycle....

[Chorophyll]

74. As long as they don't base any policy decisions on Christianity, I'm just indifferent.

I've never been Christian, I'm a non-believer, and I don't feel marginalized at all by this President or Vice President.

[Raine]

75. It doesn't bother me. nt

[DavidDvorkin]

76. I share your reaction

Maybe some day this will change, but if so, it's probably a long way off.

[hrmjustin]

80. If you are against the prayers at the inaugural ceremony you have a point, but the service in the

church today is private and nothing to do with the state.

[JI7]

84. This is like the Islamic FUndies who get upset at drawing muhammed or wingnut Christians

who get upset at happy holidays instead of merry christmas.

[Silent3]

102. Just like it...

...because I've been screaming for death to someone... uh, who's death was I calling for? I forgot!

[JI7]

109. doesn't matter, it's the stupidity of it

of what you are upset about .

even if they didn't call for deaths it's still stupid to complain about some cartoon of muhammed and to complain about happy holidays instead of merry christmas.

[Silent3]

111. This is not at all parallel...

...to private citizens commenting (and far from threatening) on the actions of private citizens acting in their capacities as purely private citizens.

[liberal_at_heart]

86. at least the church is a more appropriate setting

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. I guess this starting with George Washington

Make it now...

[gateley]

104. Could you just get over it? It is what it is. Don't watch.

[Silent3]

107. Pointless retort

See here, not that it will help if you're determined to miss the point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022241396

[gateley]

132. You're right. I just shouldn't have responded. Sorry. I'll check out the link.

[onpatrol98]

112. I see how this could be annoying, but...

I see how this could be annoying, but I thought the separation of church and state was about there shouldn't be a state sanctioned religion that could force people to behave a certain way because...well, it was state sanctioned.

I always assumed all the inauguration prayers were about the President having "his" day...not really "our" day, his way. I mean, regardless of who gets into the White House, isn't it really about doing what he wants to do on that particular day. I mean, yes...different groups get a nod in the speech. But, I always think of it ultimately as the President's Inauguration.

So, if we get an atheist President, he or she can do things their way on that day. Maybe skip the speeches, all the pomp and circumstance, save us a dollar and just go to work.

Whatever they want to do when they get elected.

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Washington Nat'l Cathedral has been desecrated by an underground parking garage

On the site of the wooded cathedral close and stonecarver's workshop, which was closed down in order to make room for the parking garage (no more funding for actual traditional stone carving for the cathedral -- they were the last traditional stonemasons workshop in the US outside of New York, I think.) All to make room for parking for wealthy, ticket-holding elite attendants at special events attended by politicians, aka the Powers of the World. Many trees were killed and engineers warned that it would destabilize the cathedral, which promptly sustained millions of dollars in damage (and no stone masons to fix) in the subsequent earthquake.

What more proof that the Arc of the Universe bends towards justice do you need?

[kwassa]

127. What are you talking about?

as someone who has parked in that garage several times ...... and also read King Leopold's Ghost.

The cathedral was never wooded .... have you ever even been there?

and your notion of it as essentially elitist is bizarre. The occasional national function has nothing to do with the day to day function.

as I said in another post, same-sex marriages are performed there, the Presiding Bishop of the entire church is a woman, as is the Bishop of Washington, both there at the prayer service today, quite ecumenical, as it was.

and the earthquake caused damage throughout a city that never had one of this magnitude before.

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. I'm not sure I understand your criticism

They tore down an entire wooded area of 60-foot tall trees to build that frickin' garage.

And removed the stonecarvers workshop AND (get this) demolished the pedestrian entrance in the front of the building (there's now a parking ramp where the historic entrance used to be.)

And yes, like all Episcopal churches that host schools and special services for the scions of the nation's politicians, I find it increasingly elitist

I was joking about God sending the earthquake to prove that building a parking garage where engineers said it would destabilize the building was a bad idea.

Why do I care? Because the building is a national historic site and used to be much more open on special occasions than it now is. Now they put out tickets or limit attendance any time some VIP might be attending. VIP's complained about the lack of parking on those occasions, so they excavated part of the cathedral grounds, just like they demolished the East Lawn of the Capitol grounds, another famous defacement of historic landscaping. Now they'll never have enough parking to give everyone a space, of course...

I used to love that cathedral when I lived in the area and I thought it really was an impressive achievement. Then I heard about them firing the stonecutters to make way for a parking garage and introducing tickets for special services.

[treestar]

121. The problem with being an atheist sometimes seems to be

that religion offends. Most of the day was secular. If you're an atheist, that may be all you have, but you do have it. The entire process was secular. No amount of prayers can get around that.

[HiPointDem]

133. Harrison re-enacted Washington crossing the delaware or something like that at his inaugural.

on the potomac, i think.

i'd prefer that kind of inaugural.

[Nay]

135. As a long-time atheist myself, I actually laugh like hell that Obama is "out-Christianing" the

fake Christian right wingers. I get a real kick out of it. I'm sure it drives them nuts. In fact, I wish the White House photographer would take one of those 'halo' photos of Obama praying. You know, like the ones that Bush had taken of himself? Boy, would THAT put the wingers around the bend!

Normally, I get sick of the sops to religion all the time, but with this I feel that Obama is playing them like a fiddle. I'm sure he's a believer himself, but he really is putting a stick in their eyes this time. It tickles me.