Like they'd actually have taken the prayer out...

[conuly]

This late in the game, that'd be admitting that God does not sanction this election.

Unless he does. Or doesn't exist. Or whatever. But any god who'd sanction Bush as president is not the god for me.

Comments

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Y'know... actually, what I find myself thinking is: "Bush is the one throwing the damn party. What about HIS right to freedom of religion?"

[conuly]

We're not talking about his private party after, we're talking about the official, legal ceremony.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Still, if Newdow doesn't want to listen to the prayers, he doesn't have to be there. If the president were an atheist he wouldn't have prayers, the fundies would gripe because they think there ought to be prayers, and they'd be idiots for it, too.

[conuly]

Except that nobody would be stopping them from praying - but this may prevent him from attending what should be a public ceremony. It also is deliberately alienating part of the public.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

The only person preventing him from attending is himself. The hand of God isn't going to come down and bar him entry because there are prayers being said - that is his choice.

[conuly]

But this isn't a private ceremony, it's a public ceremony, installing somebody into the government. This is a secular government. Secular as in non-religious. Praying officially (not on an individual basis) at a governmental affair is very close to saying that you don't care about any religion but your own. This is exactly the sort of thing the first amendment was written to avoid.

[rainbowdarling.livejournal.com]

Isn't refusing someone else the right to pray at a ceremony putting them into office just like obstructing their freedom of religion? I don't like when people tell me I have to salute the flag because I'm an American, but I don't let them telling me that bother me, and continue to not salute the flag. If a person doesn't want to hear praying, and chooses not to attend an event, its his or her own choice, not the choice on behalf of the government, to do so. Besides, he could always close his ears.

In prayer, they aren't saying "our religion is the only acceptable one." They're saying, "This is what I believe, and I choose to excercise it publicly." Not such an unusual thing.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Okay, these are more feelings than logical, well-thought out thoughts, but I'm going to risk it any way.

Inaugurations always include prayers. Congress opens with prayers. Congress has even declared national days of prayer. It's a fuzzy line between "establishing a religion" and "freedom of religion." While I certainly understand why athiests would get upset about these things, the fact is that the vast majority of Americans identify with a religion. I *do* think there is a role for civil religion to play. Civil religion is a wimpy, lip-service version of religion, certainly, but it does at least pay lip-service to humility before Something Greater than us. Getting rid of any form of religious expression in government whatsoever seems extremist to me, again given that 98% of Americans do believe in God.

Praying at an inauguration or at Congress is *not* the establishment of a religion. It is an expression of religion. I'd resent any inaugural prayer that said, "Thank you, God, for giving victory to the political party that acts in accordance with your will," but I do respect an inaugural prayer that said, "God, please guide the president as he serves in his duties." I *do* think there is a place for the latter.

Certainly government has an obligation to protect the rights of the minority, but whose rights are really being trampled on by an inaugural prayer? I think this is a case of "freedom of religion" and not "establishment of religion."

[conuly]

1. And they shouldn't, end of story. Prayer doesn't belong in our government, because we're not a theocracy.

2. ...and? It's not the majority that needs to be protected in this case.

3. MY rights are being trampled on. I already think that the religious "right" is too powerful, do I need more reminders? How is this about "freedom of religion"?

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

We simply disagree on this. I highly doubt that I'll convince you, just as you are unlikely to convince me, but I did want to state my view, just to show that it's not as simple a divide as "religious extremists" vs. "radical athiests." But do bear in mind that the constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. I think these fuzzy areas are precisely what need to be debated and discussed in the public arena.

[conuly]

But do bear in mind that the constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion.

Yes it does. It's called the establishment clause. It means I don't have to watch my tax dollars spent to promote religion.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

The exact words are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That does not mean freedom FROM religion. Congress cannot force people to attend church, they cannot deny people the right to convert to a religion or practice no religion at all, they cannot use tax dollars to support churches or clergy, they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of churches (except in cases where they can make an argument for protection of the public, as in clergy who commit crimes or religious groups stockpiling weaponry, etc).

But neither can Congress deny people the right to express their religion. Prayer in schools is a violation of the first amendment because school attendance is compulsory by law. But attendance at an inauguration or at sessions of Congress are voluntary. A member of the government, whether an employee, a Congressmember, or the President, has the right to wear a Christian cross, a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf.

Religious faith is not a private thing. Most people of faith would agree that their faith has public consequences, whether wearing certain clothing or voting certain ways in an election. The first amendment was not meant to keep religion out of politics. It was meant to keep the government from being controlled by the church, and to keep the church from being controlled by the government. In fact, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about the latter issue than the former. An inaugural prayer is not an example of government controlling religion (or of religion controlling government), whereas mandatory prayer in public schools or the mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance is.

[conuly]

they cannot use tax dollars to support churches or clergy

And what money is being used to pay the clergy at the inauguration? Are they doing this for free? Is Bush paying them?

An inaugural prayer is not an example of government controlling religion (or of religion controlling government)

I disagree. It's a public announcement that the state supports a specific religion, in this case Christianity.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Y'know... actually, what I find myself thinking is: "Bush is the one throwing the damn party. What about HIS right to freedom of religion?"

[conuly]

We're not talking about his private party after, we're talking about the official, legal ceremony.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

Still, if Newdow doesn't want to listen to the prayers, he doesn't have to be there. If the president were an atheist he wouldn't have prayers, the fundies would gripe because they think there ought to be prayers, and they'd be idiots for it, too.

[conuly]

Except that nobody would be stopping them from praying - but this may prevent him from attending what should be a public ceremony. It also is deliberately alienating part of the public.

[ironychan.livejournal.com]

The only person preventing him from attending is himself. The hand of God isn't going to come down and bar him entry because there are prayers being said - that is his choice.

[conuly]

But this isn't a private ceremony, it's a public ceremony, installing somebody into the government. This is a secular government. Secular as in non-religious. Praying officially (not on an individual basis) at a governmental affair is very close to saying that you don't care about any religion but your own. This is exactly the sort of thing the first amendment was written to avoid.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Okay, these are more feelings than logical, well-thought out thoughts, but I'm going to risk it any way.

Inaugurations always include prayers. Congress opens with prayers. Congress has even declared national days of prayer. It's a fuzzy line between "establishing a religion" and "freedom of religion." While I certainly understand why athiests would get upset about these things, the fact is that the vast majority of Americans identify with a religion. I *do* think there is a role for civil religion to play. Civil religion is a wimpy, lip-service version of religion, certainly, but it does at least pay lip-service to humility before Something Greater than us. Getting rid of any form of religious expression in government whatsoever seems extremist to me, again given that 98% of Americans do believe in God.

Praying at an inauguration or at Congress is *not* the establishment of a religion. It is an expression of religion. I'd resent any inaugural prayer that said, "Thank you, God, for giving victory to the political party that acts in accordance with your will," but I do respect an inaugural prayer that said, "God, please guide the president as he serves in his duties." I *do* think there is a place for the latter.

Certainly government has an obligation to protect the rights of the minority, but whose rights are really being trampled on by an inaugural prayer? I think this is a case of "freedom of religion" and not "establishment of religion."

[conuly]

1. And they shouldn't, end of story. Prayer doesn't belong in our government, because we're not a theocracy.

2. ...and? It's not the majority that needs to be protected in this case.

3. MY rights are being trampled on. I already think that the religious "right" is too powerful, do I need more reminders? How is this about "freedom of religion"?

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

We simply disagree on this. I highly doubt that I'll convince you, just as you are unlikely to convince me, but I did want to state my view, just to show that it's not as simple a divide as "religious extremists" vs. "radical athiests." But do bear in mind that the constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion. I think these fuzzy areas are precisely what need to be debated and discussed in the public arena.

[conuly]

But do bear in mind that the constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion.

Yes it does. It's called the establishment clause. It means I don't have to watch my tax dollars spent to promote religion.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

The exact words are: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That does not mean freedom FROM religion. Congress cannot force people to attend church, they cannot deny people the right to convert to a religion or practice no religion at all, they cannot use tax dollars to support churches or clergy, they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of churches (except in cases where they can make an argument for protection of the public, as in clergy who commit crimes or religious groups stockpiling weaponry, etc).

But neither can Congress deny people the right to express their religion. Prayer in schools is a violation of the first amendment because school attendance is compulsory by law. But attendance at an inauguration or at sessions of Congress are voluntary. A member of the government, whether an employee, a Congressmember, or the President, has the right to wear a Christian cross, a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf.

Religious faith is not a private thing. Most people of faith would agree that their faith has public consequences, whether wearing certain clothing or voting certain ways in an election. The first amendment was not meant to keep religion out of politics. It was meant to keep the government from being controlled by the church, and to keep the church from being controlled by the government. In fact, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about the latter issue than the former. An inaugural prayer is not an example of government controlling religion (or of religion controlling government), whereas mandatory prayer in public schools or the mandatory recitation of the pledge of allegiance is.

[conuly]

they cannot use tax dollars to support churches or clergy

And what money is being used to pay the clergy at the inauguration? Are they doing this for free? Is Bush paying them?

An inaugural prayer is not an example of government controlling religion (or of religion controlling government)

I disagree. It's a public announcement that the state supports a specific religion, in this case Christianity.