I was a little peeved by the benediction during today's Inauguration Ceremony for Barack Obama. Private prayer (though still unhelpful) is fine; but government-organized prayer is just wrong. I hope that in my lifetime this goes away as a standard for these types of events. 

"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 


Views: 677

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Prayer is what buys you more support 

I thought it was unnecessary and then they had another guy pray before the luncheon was served.  I was like gee whiz Obama already made it clear that he is pretty liberal when it comes to matters of religion.  I guess that it is the expectation and that following protocol seems like the best course of action though.  At least the prayers were not hugely crazed lunatic fundamentalist crap though.  In other words, it could have been worse, imagine a Romney prayer.  it would have gone like this....Lord we are all blessed to be in your great and magnificent midst on this day bla bla bla sinners bla bla bla lets kill all the non believers and gay people.  That's what a Romney prayer would have been like if you ask me

I agree, but I don't think prayer is going to leave the public stage in our lifetimes, maybe some day hopefully.

IIRC the guy who gave the benediction in 2009 was a homophobic bigot of a clergypuke, so this is an improvement believe it or not.

Though I certainly don't disagree that it should be gotten rid of.

Aping the traditions of our ancestors is easier than being truly progressive. Obama has demonstrated he is just another puppet serving up tired rituals and way too much pomp and circumstance. 

I wonder how may children we could have feed, or people employed doing something 'useful', for the money spent for the recent 'pomp and circumstance'?

Of course, we know that God has nothing better to do than watch over America.  I just wish he’d do a better job of it.



It, He, She.....Ze!


I think folks that organize political gatherings and events assume that without prayer and theist references, the event will not have the sacred feel or component that would bind all to some covenant or social contract. Without 'God' binding the whole edifice together, human frayalty will dissolve the whole thing shortly in time.

Sadly, this might happen anyway, since the less obvious networks of social commitment could cause compromise and decay, independent of the involvement of 'God as over seer'.

A second point could be made about human 'vanity'. Many people see politics as this nearly divine vocation, since it can affect human life in rather deep ways. I think politicos use this public belief to their advantage, which can cause some people to have excess reverence/fear for the politicos, and excess trust. Removing all theist trapings from politics, would expose the politicos to even greater public over sight and criticism, because they have become 'more human' than previously.    

I wouldn't hold my breath. The Supremes have already ruled on the matter. It's paradoxical: they can't teach religion in public schools (which is good) but it's okay to pray at government functions. I wonder how many are actually praying rather than wondering how long it will last, where he got that great suit, whether she knows what her hairdo looks like from behind, why doesn't that bitch shut her kids up, etc.

The Supreme Court argument is absurd. It does not satisfactorily address, imo, "Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishment of religion." "In god we trust" clearly establishes government preference/endorsement of monotheism over polytheism and non-theism.  The national motto is not "in gods we trust" and it is not "in no gods we trust." To me, "in god we trust" is not only unconstitutional, it is embarrasing - it translates to "we trust in an imaginary being."  "E pluribus unum" was far better.


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service