General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthe whining here about religion being included in the inauguration
would be amusing if it didn't reveal how little those complaining most vociferously, know about the separation of church and state. Nothing in the inauguration violated it. Nothing.
Furthermore, the President along with most Americans is religious.
For that matter, yesterday along with the inauguration we remembered a deeply religious man: The Reverend Martin Luther King.
No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Go look up JFK's inaugural speech. He invoked God and his faith at least three separate times.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Every four years for more than two centuries.
They're clever, those Christians...
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)You said it perfectly.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)because the only "religious" people in America are Christian
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)some of them are Catholics.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)Sorry if you thought I'd "bite" on the Catholics vs. Christians shit.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Jains, Shinto, Rastafarians, Buddhists (do they really count as religious?), Bahá'í Faith, Zoroastrians, Neopagans, Pagans, and Unitarian Universalists.
I may have left out a few score more...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)So?
It's been unconstitutional 57 times.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)coming out party.
Do you also feel that the presidential oath as specified in the Constitution violates the separation of church and state??
If Americans United for the Separation of Church and State isn't up in arms about this, I'm not going to be either.
SCantiGOP
(13,875 posts)does not end with "so help me God." That is an add-on that has been included since Washington's first inauguration, but it is not a part of the oath.
I don't contend it is a violation of church and state. I think it is in bad taste to force your religion on a crowd that you know includes many people of other faiths as well as non-believers. And, to use the Bible to make an argument against the practice, this passage from Matthew 6:6 says the whole practice is hypocritical:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men ... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
MADem
(135,425 posts)customarily asks if the oath taker prefers "swear" or "affirm" (for the people who don't like to swear) and also asks if they want that tag line on the end. It makes for less fuss to have those things decided before the ceremony begins.
I've given the oath without the "so help me" phrase a number of times, and also with the "affirm" --though only a time or two on that score.
SCantiGOP
(13,875 posts)Had a trial for a guy accused of discharging a weapon out of a moving car. He took the stand, and when they started to give him the oath, he stopped them and said he would prefer to give a secular affirmation, which of course they did. I looked at the expressions on the faces of some of the jurors and thought "give the guy credit for standing up for his beliefs, but not a cool move when you are facing potential jail time from a jury in red-as-hell-state South Carolina." I didn't get on the jury, but found out later they deadlocked and had to call a mistrial, so at least one of the jurors was able to get beyond the fact that the guy was a heathen.
Typical South Carolinian is typified by a caller I heard on a radio show once who, in reference to Muslims, made the brilliant observation that "they don't believe in Jesus or nothing." The host was forced to observe that, if your religion can lead you to strap on a suicide vest, you probably believe in something pretty strongly.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I always asked ahead of time. The court really should have worked that out ahead of time, too, I should think.
The only time people even notice is when someone calls attention to a difference. If you just get up there and throw down with the "affirm" or skip the "so help me" bit, no one notices--they're too busy applauding after you tell the poor sap, er, lucky sport "Congratulations--you're Uncle Sam's for X more years!"
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)never gets old.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)That's why there was a problem when a president refused to be sworn in on a Sunday. It resulted in the only time the Speaker of the House has served as President.
Now, if you're going to claim that this one wasn't official, since that happened on Sunday, you run into the problem that we taxpayers paid for a bunch of people to attend it in their official government capacity. That makes it a government function.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)That's the central act of the Inauguration. It's a government function. In case you want to deny it, remember the Muslim member of Congress who took his oath on the Quran?
There's all kinds of redutcio ad absurdums that hiccup from your title. Would we have celebrated said those prayers, had that Bible for him to put his hand on if the president didn't take the Oath of Office? Isn't the Oath specified in the Constitution? I think think your denial cuts so deep it makes your argument bleed.
Any practice that makes a claim or presumes that a spiritual being exists is religious, because it presupposes faith, a "belief in." If you ask God to help you, then it's religious.
The Oath shouldn't have "so help me God" in it. He shouldn't be swearing it on a religious book. If we've done that it that way 57 times, we've done it wrong 57 times. Nothing odd about that. We're eternal screw ups. We did that slavery thing wrong for 87 years.
Any other celebration around the Oath of Office, you could go for broke with the God references without violating the Constitution. But during that Oath, if the President is religious, maybe he just should have enough faith that God is still with him for those two sentences. If not, maybe he should say a prayer before and after.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The taxpayers do pay (from public funds) for crowd security, but they would pay for that if a dancing unicorn exhibition was substituted for the invocation and benediction. The parades, the luncheons, the ceremony and the balls are all donor-supported drills.
Of course, a ton of tax revenue is raised as a consequence of the event to more than offset the cost of that crowd security by the crowds, themselves. They buy food, lodging, souvenirs, a little bit of this-n-that, gas to get home, etc., and all that stuff accrues local taxes that go into the coffers and pay for the police overtime and the extra street sweeping, etc.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since it was tradition, that means it was OK, right?
You seem to be operating under the illusion that people pointing out there should be a separation of church and state when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state are screaming-level angry.
We're not. We're used to being second-class. But that doesn't mean we can't point it out.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Tradition and all that good stuff. We know he is religious, so why do we continue to criticize this character flaw as it intersect public politics?
We should instead spend out time whining about whiners
Estevan
(70 posts)You need something to do.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I don't know how to respond. Does anyone else agree with that?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)did you expect total agreement?
A Socialist, who also identified as a Christian, would have a better chance of becoming president than an atheist in this country, today. That may change, but it will take generations to accomplish. I can't even begin to quantify the amount of nonsense that we'd be listening to today had prayer been taken out of yesterday's celebrations. That torture is too high a price to pay.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We hung him on the cross.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)He was hung on a cross by pagans at the instigation of an established religion. Had the choice been between him and an atheist, the atheist would have been crucified.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We wouldn't waste time praying to the atheist at political events 2000 years later.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Look, the establishment clause makes it unconstitutional for a 'state' religion to be established. It does not make it unconstitutional for people to practice their religion. Most Americans still lay claim to a religious belief of some variety. Pres. Obama has laid claim to Christianity, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose day it was, obviously was not an atheist.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Perpetuating establishment myth and training minds to believe faith-based doctrine isn't wasting time. Its highly effective.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)just as the indoctrination does.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)but now I see no one is too old for stupidity
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I do know this, you are not going to change the hearts of religious people by attacking their superstitions. Religion is not something that lends itself to rational argument.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We are all on our way out anyway--mostly due to irrationality.
demwing
(16,916 posts)whining?
I mean, since you have no need to change hearts and we're all dead in our shoes anyway...
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Frankly, I've gotten a kick out of all this whining about whiners shit.
Majority dog-piles rule!
demwing
(16,916 posts)about whether you whined
More whining about people you dismiss as "whiners".
Now, by almighty God, are we getting somewhere!
demwing
(16,916 posts)Will you now whine about yourself?
whathehell
(29,102 posts)and probably won't for awhile,
so maybe you should retire the whine and waste
your time a little more creatively.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'm glad we aren't getting silly yet.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)and getting us seventy two virgins when we die and never eating
PORK and wearing little round things on our heads.
Are we getting silly yet?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)(I'm not even an atheist btw)
whathehell
(29,102 posts)I'm an agnostic, btw.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its more "believable" than everything else.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)Agnostics "know" what they don't know.
dakota_democrat
(374 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Think about it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Please, kindly do not include me in your fantasy.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)His words were not deemed (perhaps incorrectly), at the time, to be optimal at perpetuating growth and spread of civilization. Times changed, as did those messages. And they are changing again.
BTW, you think Jesus didn't exist at all?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Whose words? What words? I'm not following you.
billh58
(6,635 posts)trying to tell you that he has a red pencil box. At least, that's what I got out of it...
pnwmom
(109,021 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Pig Latin too 'low brow' for the elitist?
Response to onehandle (Reply #3)
onehandle This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)It's just another way to bash President Obama. At least that's my opinion. A poor way, at that.
Any port in a storm, I suppose, for some.
And, as a disclaimer: I am an atheist, and have been since 1965. Religious expression doesn't bother me. I simply ignore it. I advise others to do the same if it assaults their sensibilities.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Some of us are tired of seeing stone age mythology guiding society. The fact that these guys feel compelled to grovel to this nonsense is all the reason we need to say no more.
MineralMan
(146,345 posts)Here, we have freedom of religion. That means people can worship or not worship, as they choose. Don't be silly. The President is a religious man. I am not a religious man. We both have the same rights. He can worship, and I can not worship. Cool!
narnian60
(3,510 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)it as tradition. I didn't hear any outrageous religious stuff espoused ... might have missed it, was listening in the background, but I don't think there was any ... Also, it was inclusive of LGBT which I found refreshing.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and silly. Because in that case they have succeeded.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Intolerance and dogmatism, thy name is atheism.
Some of them appear just as hidebound and doctrinaire as good ole Torquemada.
.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What a laugh!
"Some of them appear just as hidebound and doctrinaire as good ole Torquemada. "
Only to those who know nothing else and think everyone should think a like they do.
Go to church and pray. In public government events, prayers have no place. You can all stroll down to the nearest church and have an prayer orgy after the public event, no?
It's a party, not an official government function (which happened a few days ago, without the religion).
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You can tell because your tax dollars paid the government employees that attended it.
demwing
(16,916 posts)you can tell because of the millions of private dollars that had to be raised to pay for it
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The employees did not take time off to attend.
MADem
(135,425 posts)match.
They don't pay Congress or the Commander in Chief by the hour, and Inauguration Day is a paid holiday even if there's no benediction or invocation involved.
The argument is not supported, I'm afraid.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)To ensure that federal money isn't being spent on things like campaign activities.
Yes, it has no effect on their paycheck, but it's tracked. And they didn't take time off for the inauguration.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Some of those people were salaried. Some were hourly. Some were assigned anyway to work the holiday which means they get a flex day to take off some other time, some were getting OT - there's no way to issue a blanket statement about compensation.
But one thing's for sure, MANY if not most of the people working yesterday's event were working on taxpayer dime and we the taxpayers paid them "extra" for being there. Since MLK is an official holiday most of them would have had a paid day off nothing more but since they worked they not only received their compensation for yesterday (plus some of them got OT etc) but ALL of them also got a flex day to take on another day at taxpayer expense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)things.
There are meal taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes....and all those attendees buy a little this or that and fill the coffers to more than offset any overtime that has to be paid.
Secret Service are salaried--their job is to protect the POTUS no matter where he goes. Cops get overtime, but a regular crew of those guys is expected to work even on holidays (they don't all take off on Xmas, either, for example). Further, they were heavily augmented by military personnel, who would be paid the same each month if they were standing as a live barricade, marching in a parade, or sitting on their ass in front of a tee vee--they don't get an extra dime OR a guaranteed extra day off (if the boss is nice, they might, but that's a personal decision--most would not have had to work on a Monday holiday, save those with "the duty" .
It's a popular fiction that the taxpayers are greatly burdened by this event. It's just not true. The taxpayers who paid for this party were the taxpayers who ATTENDED the party. The Congress authorizes money to set up the stage and the sound/video system on the west front and decorate it appropriately, and lay out the seating/standing, but that's pretty much it. All that is done well ahead of time, too, by people who work for the Architect of the Capitol and the NPS. The people getting paid, most of them, would have been paid anyway, and the increase in revenue via taxes on the crowds visiting and staying and buying and eating more than compensates for the additional outlay of overtime funds to pay hourly personnel. The balls are funded via donor contributions and ticket sales.
DC cops don't complain about demonstrations or a massive influx of visitors, and are generally very cheerful when they take place, no matter who is doing the demonstrating or why the folks are visiting. They know that large crowds fund their overtime, so it's a win-win for them.
http://planning.washington.org/planning/travel-professionals/dc-in-a-box/city-fact-sheet
DC welcomes approximately 16 million visitors each year, generating an estimated $5.6 billion in visitor spending for the city alone.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Once you have the parties and the ceremony, the tab has just started growing.
The total cost of the inauguration to the federal government is $49 million, according to Abigail Tanner, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget.
That $49 million includes a $15 million appropriation which has already been appropriated to the District of Columbia to help pay for the inauguration expenses. It also includes money to pay for the Secret Service during the inauguration and the military personnel during the parade following the swearing-in ceremony.
Meanwhile, the governors of Virginia and Maryland, and the mayor of Washington sent a letter to the federal government estimating that the inauguration was going to cost them a combined $75 million - $47 million for the District alone - for transportation and law enforcement which the federal government (paid when the final bill comes in).
The swearing in of SCOTUS, members of Congress etc doesn't consume even a fraction of taxpayer dollars....
Its not just a wash I guess is the bottom line.
I didn't even try to figure out 2013 yet.
I haven't given it a thought whether this is a valid governmental expense. Now that I've seen the numbers I'd like to think about it. That's a lot of $$ for a swearing in ceremony that's got this much religiosity wrapped around it. I know I'd feel the same whether this was a Dem or Rethug.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There is, in many cases, no "actual expense." Example--military personnel.
Every command in the greater DC area is ordered to fork over a bunch of people. These people are on salary. Depending on the size of your installation or unit, you could be throwing five at them or a hundred or more. These people, the ones who line the parades, do some marching, direct people to their seats, etc., have to go off and work for the Inaugural Committee, but there's no "extra money" that is paid out to them. They're local--they just go to a different place for their job in the weeks ahead of the Inauguration, and they rehearse and practice. A value is assigned to their contribution--but that money would have been spent ANYWAY, even if there was no Inauguration.
What happens to the work they would have been doing had they not been called away? Some other poor bastard does it--instead of coming in at eight and leaving at four, people come in earlier, leave later, work through lunch, and take work home. They don't get paid "extra." They're on salary too--they just work a little harder for a few weeks. Jobs that aren't critical get gundecked or shitcanned.
The Secret Service knows to budget for the Inauguration--it's a fixed expense, it occurs every four years, it's part of their submission to Congress. It isn't an "extraordinary expense." It's a recurring one. Besides, those guys are on salary, too---and how hard they work depends entirely on their principals. Dealing with a George Bush, who went to bed early and didn't like to get out and see the country or press the flesh, they had it easy. With a Clinton -- or even worse, the Gores (who used to run all over DC in parkas in the winter) they had their work cut out for them. But they cut their cloth according to the measure, and the measure varies with the principal they are protecting.
And if sixteen million visitors can generate almost six BILLION in revenue in a year just for the District...well, do the math. A million people came, saw, stayed, ate, and spent.
We know full well that people stayed in hotels (which were marked UP hundreds of dollars per room, with the attendant tax increases) in MD and VA as well-- and ate in MD/VA restaurants, and paid meal taxes--so a lot of that crying is BS, too--they get the money, they just get it on the back end in tax revenues.
The whole "outrageous expense" thing is just a canard.
The swearing in of SCOTUS doesn't attract a million people paying hotel taxes, sales taxes, airport taxes, meal taxes, etc. to DC either. The Inauguration is a four year revenue boost for the district....rather like the NH primary is a big boost for that state every four years, and the Iowa Caucuses bring big money to that state as well.
And the parties? They are donor funded through rich bums kicking in, sponsorships, and ticket sales. The government doesn't pay a red cent towards those.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Instead they got paid for being there AND got an extra paid day as well.
Sorry, I don't agree. It costs us. How much still awaits the final tally I guess.
I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Will take some time to mull it over but to say the accounting is fake isn't accurate imho.
Thanks for a respectful convo though. You have no idea how much I relish stuff like this lately on this site. You are an angel....
MADem
(135,425 posts)it's not a huge sacrifice by either the taxpayers OR the military participants.
When military commands hand over the personnel who are on loan to the Joint Inaugural Committee (and a military rep who works with them to coordinate all these souls), they usually don't get them back for a few days after the event. They aren't "working" all that time. They also aren't "working" a full day, every day that they're assigned to the committee--it's actually a mini vacation with short hours for most of those people, who are assigned to the Committee from November onward, many of them. It makes for a nice Christmas for those lucky few...they are expected to bust it a little bit on the actual day, but they've been coasting up to that point, so a bit of a push isn't out of line.
The donors, who fund the parade and balls and private parties--and there are a ton of 'em--were capped at a max of fifty grand each this time around. OPEN SECRETS is still irritated that they haven't gotten all the "detes" about the donations, but I promise you--the parties and parade are privately funded.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/obama-inaugural-donors.html
I am no angel, but I have worked on the periphery of an Inauguration, which is how I know about this stuff (Clinton 2).
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)"It's a party, not an official government function (which happened a few days ago, without the religion)."
The one that used the bible?
demwing
(16,916 posts)which is what seems to have so many undies bunched
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Only undies I see bunched here are the people howling about atheists.
I'm sure there must be some group similar to the BOG where no criticism of religion is allowed. Your undies are sure to unbunch there.
demwing
(16,916 posts)unless I'm in a church or a hospital. Two pair if it's a church in a hospital.
Guess I showed you...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Instead of tearing down others religion and offending them, stick to using facts. Atheists have facts on their side. Offensive billboards isn't converting anyone, but research, data, & historical analysis may.
intheflow
(28,516 posts)The human condition in a nutshell, becoming a form of that which you hate. And the beat goes on...
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)If we wouldn't brainwash and indoctrinate our kids from birth to believe in fantasy written by stoned goat herders, we wouldn't have to appear as the bad guys when we attempt to offer a scientific version over the biblical narrative.
Seriously, Noah? Talking snakes and bushes?
It's time to leave these out of public discourse.
And no, we all don't trust in a god.
Let's start phasing these quaint expressions out and make a truly United States of no main belief, as the founders intended.
emulatorloo
(44,261 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Really? That's pure bullshit.
I was thrilled that Obama was reelected. I worked on his campaigns (including state senator my friend). I believe in the Dems and was thrilled with Obama's speech yesterday. I loved the poet, the music, Chuck Schumer... I simply think we're overboard on the religion part.
And that makes me a Mitt lover??
Sorry but you could still change that and I'll delete my response but your charge is whack.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The children dont have to pray. Should at least bow and move their mouths.
cali
(114,904 posts)of the issue. proud of that, hon?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)As you pointed out those that are not religious are in the minority and should know their place.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,405 posts)I'm serious. Why is prayer in schools unconstitutional, but prayer in government ceremonies so obviously OK with the constitution that hardly anyone questions it?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)why all the religious tomfoolery was offensive to them. I heard it was almost a full bore church religious revival service.
emulatorloo
(44,261 posts)Don't believe everything you read on DU.
Non-believer here, what you "heard" is BS.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I agree that things can be seen in many different ways and interpretations.
cali
(114,904 posts)at all to comment. watch it and then way in.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's great!
So why do we need it at the actual event?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What shocks me is the complete lack of understanding so many have with the separation of church and state. It boggles the mind.
cali
(114,904 posts)and depressing. so much ignorance and bigotry all bundled up in one sweet little package.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)We get separation of church and state. No one here is suggesting that President Obama violated the LAW. We want something more.
We want imaginary friends -- all of them -- relegated to the fiction and mythology section where they properly belong. We are tired of seeing this hateful, sociopathic, bigotted bullshit given legitimacy by our leaders. The Bible our President placed his hand upon teaches that gays should be murdered, that women and blacks are inferior and mentally deficient, that witches should be killed, that the sexually liberated be tortured to fucking death. And I could go on, but how much freaking crazy do you need before you say that's plenty.
It's time we grow the fuck up and put that nonsense where it belongs.
just1voice
(1,362 posts)Many people play political games and think they can separate the games from real life. Others can easily see through their hypocrisy and have no patience for the hideous crimes they tacitly support. Sadly, it very rarely occurs to the hypocrites what they are.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)The separation of church and state is real. It is life.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)What does anything you just said have to do with the separation of church and state. I do hope you feel better now that you have gotten that out.
To equate Myrlie Evers Williams and her beliefs with anything you posted is sick. She is a civil right activist and ex charwoman of the NAACP. And Obamas faith in the Bible has brought him to the person he is today. I wonder why he doesn't want to "gays should be murdered, that women and blacks are inferior and mentally deficient, that witches should be killed, that the sexually liberated be tortured to fucking death."
Did I mention that the post you were replying to has to do with the separation of church and state.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)I'm in love. Perfectly stated
tama
(9,137 posts)you just want to force your interpretation of imaginary friends (which many people, especially children, experience in various ways) over everybody else, and deny others the freedom to interprete and experience imaginary friends in other ways.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Martin Luther King Jr.'s final words in his final speech, the night before he was assassinated: "So I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord."
I mean, truly, a bigger "Duh" has yet to be seen on DU. Ridiculous.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)MLK being religious proves that all religious people are good. Or that some religious people are good. Or that some people are good despite being religious. Or that....
I mean. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)never mind that that particular hymn has deep historical & cultural significance for African Americans and those of us aware of our families' ties to the abolition movement, in addition to its use by MLK.
I thought that particular hymn was very appropriate, especially since the inauguration took place MLK's actual birthday.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Not only a day late but a dollar short too, cali.
you certainly have a way with words.
leftstreet
(36,118 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)work on climate change - Everyone, even the Baggers
than to change that religious thingie.
Let's fight stuff that means something and is possible. It's ridiculous to kvetch about the bible and the inaug and all the crap. I'm an atheist but I just can't find any reason to pound on this aspect of traditional inaugeration/religious stuff.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I guess we should just pack it in and call it a day.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)To take all reference of God and all that stuff out of ceremony and tradition just isn't going to happen in a short time. We can put in our opinions and hopefully one day Santa will be revealed to be a phony, but people just are not ready for it. This would be the most monumental task ever taken by the human race. Everything else would be dwarfed by this change.
What exactly do you think can be done to get rid of these fantasies that most people have?
I think it would take an alien spaceship invasion or something of that nature to have people change their minds - and even then the extremists will find a way to make it fit into the bible prophecies.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Giving up. Basically.
The gig is up. Lunatics are running the asylum while its on fire and we have less than a century left on this gilded age.
Why waste our time? Why waste it with a nation? With a job? With religion? With hate? With bias.
Its getting down to the wire. It just doesn't matter any more. Flowery speeches. Political rhetoric. Appeals to a higher power, or even morality. Its all bullshit.
We're done. Why waste a minute more in this charade? Its not even a fun one. This blend of psychosis sucks.
If any of that makes sense to you, you might need a psychologist. I sure do.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)he's got the right idea.
demosincebirth
(12,550 posts)Silent3
(15,425 posts)... of separation of church and state, with non-believers forced to watch, attend, and/or pray?
If it doesn't go that far, well, there's not the slightest thing you can see for anyone to be bothered by?
cali
(114,904 posts)no there is nothing to be bothered about as far as the inauguration goes. Unless, of course, you enjoy high dudgeon and many here certainly do.
Silent3
(15,425 posts)...if, say, it turned out that few or no women were called upon to speak at the inaugural, so long as there wasn't any specific anti-woman policy agenda you could point to? And anyone who complained about sexism would have simply been engaged in "high dudgeon"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He didn't say anything anti-gay at the inauguration, if I recall. So inviting him was just peachy-keen, right?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)some of the materials, Battle Hymn was quoted by MLK Jr in the last line of his last speech. I thought the song was in tribute to him as well as just sounding fine out of the choir.
I loved the entire shindig. The speech by the President was great. That's what matters. But I loved everything about it except for Tony's Medici/Thomas Moore hat. Mercy.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Surely there are harsher adjectives you can use for atheists who dared speak!
Why there were entire screeds yesterday against anyone who even dared to use the word... "disappointed".
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Some peopl were turned off by it...sorry if it offended you that they voiced their opinions.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)from more than a few DUers.
Of course, then there'd have to be some recognition that atheists actually know history, which Cali obviously believes we don't...
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Seems members of both sides of the issue enjoy a bit of melodramatic self-martyrdom on message boards.
Human nature, I suppose. Human nature also to rationalize it in ourselves, and indict it in others.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Or that she's (you?) being whining, "complaining vociferously", or ignorant of history?
As David Plouffe told Candy Crowley, the false equivalency is wearing thin....
Iggo
(47,586 posts)Let it go.
Bake
(21,977 posts)We're not happy here unless we're griping about something. Wait, that's the Republicans ... no, it's DU.
Bake
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)...can also take your wonderful advice.
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)They tied their cart to bush, so let's not allow them back to the good graces of America. Make the church's pay taxes! Then, they can participate in our national ceremonies. Never again should false religion darken the halls of America!
Gman
(24,780 posts)They're not as smart as they think they are
frylock
(34,825 posts)we are truly blessed that you tolerate us.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)...is pitiful.
"No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe."
Just telling us to shut up.
We hit a nerve every time.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)A trifecta, if you will.
Sorry cali, Nadine still has you beat by a substantial margin, her OP was an ironic near brilliant work of art.
And English isn't even her first language, amazing really.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)I swear, some people just complain because they like the sound of their own voices. If He were Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, I'd imagine the ceremony would honor those beliefs too. Talk about nitpicking.. I'm just glad he won and we're not talking about President Romney.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)taking the opportunity of every school assembly to share his christian faith with the students. Right?
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)It's one thing to talk about faith or lack there of, it's another thing to try to convert others to your way of thinking.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)One is a leader talking about how wonderful faith is.
The other is a leader talking about how wonderful faith is.
It's the same thing.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The other, nobody has bothered to sue over.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)People continue to hold onto such superstitious nonsense.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)What may be "nonsenses" to you, is faith to others. I respect your right to not believe without insulting you, I suggest you do the same. Tolerance is a beautiful thing.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I know!
The tolerance of atheists expressing their views is staggering here!
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)This whole thread is simply amusing, every time I come to this forum, I realize why I stopped coming here in the first place. It's so high school. Live and let live. No one is forcing folks to believe or not believe. Is it really a shocker that religion played a part in the President's inauguration? It reminds me of the lame controversies that the righties create on a daily basis.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)No one is forcing you not to believe, only to accept that others are allowed to vocalize their beliefs in just the same way you are.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I think you're confusing "shock" with "disappointment."
zeemike
(18,998 posts)STFU about religion...and how if you believe that shit you are a stupid stupid person...
No one should be offended by that....but hearing references to God is offensive...because....well it just is.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes. And all the other stuff too. Because being called stupid pales to being called obviously immoral and deserving of eternal (not some but ETERNAL) torment. Especially when denying science.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Cause when they condemn you to ETERNAL damnation you believe it is real...and that is why it is so much worse?
Stupid is about hear and now....Hell is a place in the future that you don't believe in.
But should I be offended then if you tell me when you die it is all over and you are never again conscious for ETERNITY?...some people might think that is hell and could rightly claim a butt-hurt....but you have science that PROVES it is so?...would love to see it.
The problem is that these arguments fall apart when closely examined....science has not proved such and such, and your complaints are trivial and petty...what someone else believes and speaks about dose not harm you...what they DO is what harms you.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh please! What I believe obviously doesn't matter.
Besides, kowtowing to some god in the here and now so you don't burn for eternity is different? "Knowing" (and hoping) non believers burn in hell IS in the here and now. The future hasn't happened yet. You can't get out of wishing us harm.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And you will find many that are not atheist and do not wish you any harm...ether hear or in the future.
And I can say for certain that you will not go to hell and any punishment you will receive will be right here on earth in this life not the next...and the punishment will not be from god but from your fellow men or yourself.
God does not require kowtowing to...men require that to satiate their ego...any divine being is so far above that.
The problem you have is with fundamentalist who are so far away from the teachings of Jesus that you might as well say they were Anti Christ...and you project that on the belief in god as the cause of it....that is simply not true, as sure as the belief in no god is not the cause of crime.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)If you feel that I should accept your view that it is a sane rational belief that some people have, then you also need to accept that I view it as an irrational superstition that some people have. Or we just have to agree to disagree.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)who have a different view. Everyone and their grandma is up in arms on this forum when the right-wing attacks Muslims, as we should be; We should feel that same since of rage when folks from other religions, or folks who are non-religious are insulted.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)The fact is I'm not being insulting, even if you're insulted.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)That was offensive to me.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Am I not allowed to believe that?
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)Whatever tickles your fancy.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)rainlillie
(1,095 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Your faith must not be very strong. Or in the back of your mind, you know it IS superstitious nonsense and have to work hard to suppress that notion.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It shouldn't come as much surprise that it is difficult to get respect from people that you hope will be tortured for eternity.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)I'm more of a; "love thy neighbor" type of gal, then damning folks. But hey that's just me.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)rainlillie
(1,095 posts)#1. I believe in God, Allah, Buddha and so much more.
#2. I don't belong to an organize religion.
#3. My best friend who is the God -mother to both my children is an atheist. Yeah, we New Yorkers are crazy like that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Are you seriously suggesting that all faiths hold that tenet, that atheists "burn in a lake of fire?"
I don't think that is true. I'm pretty sure those who practice Shinto don't care much what you do.
And this crew aren't monolithic in their afterlife beliefs, either: http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm
These guys aren't sold on hell, either--they're into recycling: http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Hinduism.html
And if you go to our friend Google and ask "Do christians believe in hell?" you'd be surprised at some of the answers--there's not unanimity there. There are christians who don't buy that "bad afterlife" bit at all.
I think it's probably best to not assume what people think or believe without asking first. That respect thing is a two way street.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)It 'so unevolved. Very disappointing
mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If those assholes would only sit down and shut up, right?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I don't like civic religion, but it's psychologically important for social cohesiveness and so I deal with it. People need ritual. I am a Westerner, and am thus steeped in Christian imagery and metaphor whether I like it or not.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)more as tradition. It is, as you say, "psychologically important for social cohesiveness and so I deal with it. People need ritual." As on DUer said once to me, maybe it was you, if they didn't have religion then they would probably have extreme nationalism, so take the religion as a better choice ... well, something like that.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)The number of non-religious is growing, especially among the younger generation. That is a direct threat to the influence and power of the churches.
Some churches are trying to adapt, others are digging in to dogma and fundamentalism. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the latter is more common among a lot of churches.
The religious/non religious divide is, IMO, greater in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party (which has effectively purged even many moderate Christians-let alone the secular).
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)Would we hear shxt from shinola if such events involved Hindu, Muslim, Jewish culture etc. We may not consider ourselves as believers in the same or any specific religion, but the religious views of our family background and heritage does represent a huge factor in how we view the world and other aspects of behavior, how justice is applied, etc. Religious heritage culturally hard wires us to an extent and all the bitching in the world about religion is not going to change such human traits of behavior.
whathehell
(29,102 posts)The hypocrisy is WAY over the top,
because like most societies, unfortunately, DU
has its share of bullies and cowards.
Bake
(21,977 posts)You just nailed it. THANK YOU.
While they are busy ridiculing the faith of (mostly) Christians, in such terms as "Imaginary Cloud Being" etc., I can't help but notice that I rarely if ever see a person of faith refer to them as "arrogant, superior bastards."
Bake
whathehell
(29,102 posts)and, yes, there IS a dearth of insults like "arrogant, superior bastards" being thrown at them
by people of faith, and I, for one, find that regrettable.
djean111
(14,255 posts)But - now I can relax, because not caring for the religious trappery has now been labeled as Obama-bashing or hating or whatever, and the circle is complete!
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,509 posts)space time continuum.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)is an example of exactly why religiosity in government is a problem. Once again, DU unintentionally serves up one of the glaring defects in our society while trying to defend them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)values.
I suppose there might be some disappointment on the part of those that thought maybe he was secretly an Atheist or something. I take him at face value, so I am only disappointed to see a politician, in a formal political ceremony, regarding him assuming public office, including religious overtones as part and parcel to the ceremony. It might not violate the 1st amendment directly, but it seems to be against the spirit of at least, how the court has applied the 1st in these matters, via Lemon vs. Kurtzman.
Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,509 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ass. why is it you trolls are so fucking stupid?
YankeyMCC
(8,401 posts)nothing offensive or excessively exclusionary.
i think it would be more fitting to affirm or swear on the constitution however there was to much to be happy for than to say anything at the moment.
however, i also know the pain of rejection and community condemnation due to being atheist i sympathize with those who did speak up. and opening a conversation about that with a generalization and insult is not going to get us very far along the path of shared community mr obama talked about so elegantly yesterday.
longship
(40,416 posts)It is added on for the majority of our nation who are religious. I do not disagree that it has become tradition to wrap the inauguration of our presidents in religious garb, so to speak.
But what many of us see, and what maybe you do not see, is that the only necessity in doing this is to make people comfortable that they have elected yet another president who worships a god. That fact alone highlights to many in this country that they are the other, outsiders who will never be allowed to be part of the process. It is what Madison and Jefferson would label the tyranny of the majority.
As an atheist, I do not care whether my president is religious or not. I don't care whether he or she goes to church or what church. My president can pray to Yahweh, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Buddhist floaty thing. It just doesn't bother me one bit whatever.
But all the prayers at the inaugural does bother me because a president should not use the office to display his religiosity to the world. His power comes not from god, but from our Constitution, which never once mentions god and specifically prohibits religious tests for office.
Now I admit that the prayers are probably not unconstitutional by today's standards. But to many people, they are a blatant demonstration that our government considers us outsiders. At least, four years ago, President Obama recognized us in his speech. I will take him at his word that we are still included in his thoughts. But I remain very uncomfortable with all the prayers in government, especially by the GOP, who take it to what I consider dangerous levels.
That latter issue is why some of us bring this topic up.
Please, if you want to discuss things rationally, it is best not to call names. That tactic is sophomoric and never goes anywhere good.
Thanks.
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. is another's exercising of their Constitutional Right to Free Speech to state their opinion.
I know which of those two I'd prefer to be a member of society with.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If you think that nothing yesterday violated it, you are mistaken, but many share your view because they insert an invisible "one" in the phrase "establishment of (one) religion."
The state should have nothing to do with religion. Like, nothing.
Was there a satanist invocation? Was there an invocation from some guy telling everyone that only a particularly stupid child could believe in God? Was there some guy with a unique personal cosmology where the universe is made of Legos?
No, there were not.
Those views were excluded. Their exclusion should not be controversial, but it IS controversial because other views were included. There is no reason for any state function to include or exclude any religion. It is supposed to exclude all religion... not to say anything negative about religion by excluding it, but because it is supposed to be a separate sphere.
The inclusion of good non-sectarian religion is an endorsement of good non-sectarian religion.
And invoking tradition (not saying you are or aren't) is deeply cynical from people (not necessarily you) who want to cop an attitude about how "reasonable" they are in embracing traditional counter-constitutionalism by citing the fact that we have had this stuff for a long time without it being unconstitutional... as if that means anything (!)
It was illegal in many places for blacks and whites to marry even a century after the 14th Amendment. And if anyone cares to argue that the fact that the 14th Amendment wasn't taken seriously in cultural practice is evidence that the 14th Amendment did not mean that black Americans were equal for all legal purposes then they are free to make that argument.
But we know what both you and I would think of that argument.
And re: "No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe." That's is a real straw man. The establishment clause does not require formal coercion. If the government started running ads for Walmart at government expense they would not be forcing anyone to shop at Walmart, nor forbidding anyone to shop at K-mart.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I'm glad I read through this thread because I was going to post something similar.
jcamp27
(9 posts)you are free to express your opinion about religion and have feelings as you see fit. I would point out that there is already a political party in this country that will tolerate no variation on ideology, and demands all its elected officials toe the party line unequivocally. I'm proud that I don't belong to that party and I appreciate the diversity of thought and belief of my chosen party.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)I must have missed something along the way, because the President talked about his "faith" quite often. As I recall he talked about it during the convention in the summer. If I had an issue with it, I probably wouldn't have voted for him. It's not like the cat was let out of the bag yesterday.. Also it's not like Carter or Clinton didn't use religion during their inauguration speeches.
frylock
(34,825 posts)amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)2,999 Gods. Gotta cover all bases
Progressive dog
(6,930 posts)But it was minimal and not worth arguing over. Madison felt that military chaplains and Congressional chaplains were unconstitutional, but did nothing to stop them. Whether the President is religious or not does not matter to me. His policy positions and actions do, and I don't care if they are based on his beliefs or not.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)I have no interest in anyone else's religious delusions, no matter how common or widespread they might be.
ecstatic
(32,781 posts)I can understand genuine posts expressing annoyance with regard to the traditional/religious aspects of inauguration. I'm a Christian, but even I don't like to sit through long, boring sermons (thank God for fast forward, the mute button, and 500 channels). But the tone of certain OPs yesterday was hostile to the point of being in troll territory. As many people pointed out, the format of these ceremonies has been pretty consistent for decades, so to act surprised, shocked, and outraged in a manner that disrupts the community is a little suspect, IMO.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And that is apparently a very hard pill for some people to swallow.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts).. you spend a little time researching tyrannide maioritas.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That's their problem.
judesedit
(4,443 posts)That does not interfere with their governing. As you can see the GOP is no more righteous for doing so. They are still screwing us at every turn. Did you catch their move in Virginia yesterday while on of the Dem legislaturers was at the inauguration? Check it out. They are less than cow fodder in my book. Jesus is ashamed of them and probably half the Dems anyway. Get a grip. No matter what Obama does the republicants find fault with.
Don't worry. We love you, Obama, and are so thankful for all you've managed to accomplish while trying to work with this "do-nothing" Congress. You're the best. I hope your faith gives you the strength you'll need for the next 4 years.
DinahMoeHum
(21,825 posts). . .what a fucking waste of time.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)charges that no effort is made to show that others made the charge charged?
Who said it was a violation of the separation of C&S?
What I'd like to know is, why is it seemingly necessary just to make crap up when indicting those indicted? I see this all the time where critiques of BHO are involved, and it implies worse things about those doing it than the phony charges do those they are directed at.
I'd bet every single person that offered a criticism or wish that it wasn't included to the extent that it was, knows full well there was no such violation present. I'd also bet you can't show otherwise.
trishtrash
(74 posts)I am pretty new here but have been an onlooker for a very long time. This is not the DU I thought I was signing up for. I do not call myself a Christian but there was not one minute of this beautiful ceremony that offended me. Why aren't we talking about the issues that concern everyone who participates on this website, the issues that the president spoke about in his very eloquent and progressive speech, and how the changes we all want can best be brought about?
djean111
(14,255 posts)trishtrash
(74 posts)It's just disconcerting and frankly surprising to see the level of vitriol in some of these posts. The inauguration is a ritual in which the incoming president can choose to have a blessing or benediction, the music of his choice etc. And as has been pointed out, our founders evoked God or a heavenly power not just in word but in our great founding documents. Imagine the uproar had all mention of God been purged from the proceedings. Good lord!!
djean111
(14,255 posts)Because there are lots of threads about lots of things, today!
Looks, really, like there are more threads whining about the "whiners" - which is what anyone who dares criticize anything remotely related to Obama is called. And then I believe RW paid troll and Obama-hater are next in line.
Vitriol? Don't see much of that.
But lots of condescension, for sure, both sides.
For myself, I just didn't watch, started zero threads, never occurred to me, but I do tend to stick up for atheism, here and there.
Don't mind hymns, like some of them, but religious droning isn't my thing. And frankly don't care about the religious feelings of our founders.
Not interested enough for vitriol, however.
I cared deeply about the election; the rest is just stuff. Not into ritual, either. For sure, yesterday's ritual wasn't meant for me - I know that!
trishtrash
(74 posts)And, I have been and will continue to be a whiner when Obama falls short of what he could be or what he has promised. I do think that ritual plays an important part in our world both private and public. And I have to confess that the event yesterday touched me to my core. Then my husband and I went to see "Lincoln" yesterday and I was crying red white and blue.
malaise
(269,259 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)But if you don't you're definitely on the outside looking in. As it should be according to some.
Julie
progressoid
(50,011 posts)Raine
(30,541 posts)Laochtine
(394 posts)Your beliefs don't mean as much when the bastards win,
love each other long enough to tear each other apart.
That is all