From Beliefnet:
Michael Newdow, along with 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists, named Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., officials in charge of inaugural festivities, the Rev. Joseph E. Lowery and pastor Rick Warren in their complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington Tuesday, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
Roberts will administer the oath of office to Obama at the Jan. 20 event. Warren and Lowery are scheduled to deliver the invocation and benediction, respectively.
I may bring down the wrath of many upon my head, but I think that those who initiated the lawsuit are probably right. I also think that they probably won't get very far with their lawsuit.
I have mixed feelings, leaning to the negative, about "In God We Trust" on the money, "...under God...." in the pledge, and invocation and benediction as elements of such public ceremonies.
H/T to Nicholas Knisely at the Episcopal Café.
If all those references to the Almighty went, how would it change our encounter with God? Not at all, I suspect.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you too Grandmere --I would like to keep the invocation of God outa this stuff too.
ReplyDeleteIt might be an interesting experiment of "authority."
Where are the wrathful responses?
ReplyDeletePastor Rick could be out with no loss of face or blame for anyone but the litigants and the judges.
Well, I thought I would throw my two cents in on this matter.
ReplyDeleteAs an atheist for almost forty years now, I'm used to public ceremonies including prayers and it doesn't bother me in the least. In God We Trust, Under God…none of it ruffles my feathers.
I celebrate Hanukah, Christmas, and Kwansaa (not a religious holiday) at this time of year with close friends…for me it's about being with people I love and sharing in something that is important to them.
Over the years I have learned not to spread the fact that I'm an atheist around—the reaction is not always pleasant. But close friends and family are well aware and accept me for who I am, just as I accept them.
I have traveled to the apple barns in North Georgia with my dear aunt's church group, I have dinner at my cousin's church on Wednesday night when I visit her, and I bow my head at weddings.
You have to pick your battles and attempting to erase religion out of public events just didn't seem as important to me as say, erasing world hunger or stopping the genocide in Darfur.
I ask myself many years ago, when fellow atheists tried to get me involved in matters such as what you wrote about, how important this was in my life. The answer was—not at all. For me, there are already enough battles over religious beliefs—lives lost, civil rights denied—that why would I want to bring non-religion into the mix?
Happy New Year to All!
Rhonda Renee, I'm glad you chimed in. You're right. Each of us must choose our battles, and I don't think the matter of prayers at public events is an important enough cause toward which I should direct my energy. If some folks do, well it's their fight, for or against. However, if I were forced to take sides, I would side with the litigants.
ReplyDeleteFighting against war, preventable disease, hunger, homelessness - I could go on - are far more worthy of our attention than whether we have prayer at public events, or not.
I agree with you on all points Mimi!
ReplyDeleteBy arguing over prayer at public events, the Ten Commandments in Government buildings, we don't have to look at the uglier issues as you mentioned. From the Christian perspective, do we really think we are showing what it means to be "Christ-like" by fighting these battles? Nobody is telling me that I can't pray for the President-elect. Does anyone believe that God will judge us because there was no invocation prayer? We REALLY need to re-examine our priorities. I always wonder if these same people would defend the right of an Imam or Buddhist priest to pray at the Invocation?
ReplyDeleteAfter living in Texas for 16 years, I have decided that freedom of religion means that we can choose which Christian denomination we belong to and separation of Church and state only applies to the other guys. When I first went to work there, they didn't ask if you went to church, they asked where. Neither were legal questions.
I too would take the side of the litigants. And thanks to Rhonda for putting up with us!
It's all part of the myth of the Christian nation, right?
ReplyDeleteHey, in Canada, we not only don't have an invocation at the inauguration, we don't have an inauguration either. The closest we come to it is something called 'the speech from the throne' at the opening of Parliament.
But come to think of it, I guess our Head of State is the Monarch, and there might just be a wee bit of prayer when he or she gets 'inaugurated'. Problem is, last time it happened was 1953, and most of us can't remember back that far!
No, I'm for leaving it in. Not just because I'm stodgy, and generally likely to come down on the side of tradition, either. Among other things, Newdow and his cohorts are wrong in saying that the phrase serves no purpose except to beat the poor defenseless atheists about the head with scary old God. One thing it does is strengthen the oath, so that it really is an oath and not just some solemn declaration. It's there for the benefit of the person being sworn in, not the bystanders.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, Jesus admonished us not to swear by God or by heaven or by earth, and to simply let our Yes be yes and our No be no. So an oath, on Jesus' terms, would not require reference to the deity to be both solemn and adequate.
ReplyDeleteI do remember her Britannic Majesty's coronation, though I was just a boy at the time. The pomp impressed me no end. We, however, are not investing a monarch - Cheney and Bush's best attempts notwithstanding.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePaul, you took the words out of my mouth - and on my own blog!
ReplyDeleteBillyD, look how seriously Bush took his "so help me God" oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Personally, I don't care.
We are not a Christian nation. Obama didn't even search around for a nice rabbi or imam to say a prayer. I suppose an imam would be going too far. That would have sent the hysterics who still believe Obama to be a Muslim over the edge.
God only ever had one chosen nation - and it wasn't the U.S.!
ReplyDeleteOne nation under God is patently not true, as many of us don't believe in God, and those that do have great differences of opinion on what God is - differences so deep within religions that one group may well consider the God another group worships as sort of a demiurgos.
In God We Trust? Then why do we have money to print that on?
That said, is it worth a fight? The fight raises the profile tremendously, giving it more value than it has now. I think it's more a sense of uneasiness in the more liberal of us in Christianity as we've befriended atheists and agnostics and realize that we want them treated well. However, I think that Rhonda Renee is correct, if I may paraphrase, in saying that it has become sort of a background noise - a magic formula of meaningless words and gestures.
Which, frankly, does make me a bit sad and angry, as it shows how combining God and state makes God as irrelevant as state becomes.
Mimi, I'll try to return them. Today, your words; tomorrow, perhaps some sacred foreskin' then it will be stolen moments. I don't want to become a habitual thief.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Paul. Right is right.
ReplyDeleteMark I see the prayers as irrelevant, too. Whether they're there or not doesn't change anything. They'd best be out of the picture.
I'm also on the side of the litigants. Of course, I would side with nearly anyone if it kept Rick Warren off the airwaves for an extra nanosecond....
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing for the person swearing to choose to add "so help me God", it is another for the person giving the oath to add it.
ReplyDeleteIt is also noticeable that the prayers given at the ceremony have become less diverse over time (check when the last time a Catholic or a Rabbi offered a prayer).
My own thought is if they must have an invocation/benediction make the speaker(s) low key (perhaps a VA hospital or military chaplain who has served honorably for many years) and neutral in wording so as to include as many as possible including the non-religious (e.g., "May we bow our heads for a moment of silence to solemnly consider what is about to be done").
I can't really get exercised by these things; I mean, obviously I agree with the viewpoint, but I don't think any of this kind of litigating is worth the effort.
ReplyDeleteIT
It seems far less important than feeding hungry people and caring for sick ones.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I REALLY believe in the total separation of church and state and the last eight years have shown what a slippery slope it is to deem any aspect of the Constitution unimportant.
I don't think that it's worth the effort to sue. I don't really care, but I'd still like to have Pastor Rick off the stage.
ReplyDeleteIf I were an atheist I might feel more like RR. And this probably IS a loosing battle. So, I understand people not wanting to fight it.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the inauguration is a secular event, much like football games and high school graduations, and there shouldn't be a prayer. There just shouldn't. Either this is America for all of us, or it is America for none of us.
I say, if you want to pray, then go on home and have at it. But, when we are gathered as a national community, let's keep religion out of it.
Just me.
I say, if you want to pray, then go on home and have at it.
ReplyDeleteAs Jesus said, don't pray on the street. Go into your prayer closet.