Prayers for the New President

Amy Sullivan:
.
While I'm sure this strain of formal political religiosity is less offensive (and perhaps even slightly useful, as you suggest) than it has more recently been, as a Christian and (more importantly) an American, I'd like to suggest that most of us are interested in our government performing less ceremony, observing less ritual, putting on less morality-show theater, and just getting the crap on with the real tasks of governing that affect our daily lives.
.
We're not so stupid as to fail to recognize the political class' nods and winks to each other during these carnival shows, Amy Sullivan. It's not 1984. We're not the open-mouthed marks we used to be --even those of us who believe Jesus Christ gave humanity grace.

OT: But, Glenn is reporting that:
.
The Swiss Government today announced that it will agree to accept released Guantanamo detainees if that helps close the camp, which Switzerland, like most of the civilized world, considers a blight on Western justice and an ongoing violation of international law.
.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

I agree SZ, and that is as an athiest not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or any other flavor. I am not opposed to religion so much as I am in favor of absolute secular government. One of many ironies and tragedies of the destruction of Iraq is that a secular government, albeit repressive one, will be replaced by a sectarian and repressive one. Nice subsitution. Won't go into the Bushie religiousity spill over into policy, but mention woman's reproductive choice, homosexuality, stem cell research, pushing nonscience in schools (creationism vs. evolution), abstention only sex education (sure, that works, just look at the preacher's kids), favoritism toward faith based organizations and individuals (see Blackwater in Wiki). Even his most lauded program to fight AIDS in Africa was corrupted by an initial prohibition to distribute condoms, and insisting, again, on abstinence sex education programs.
.
Get on with issues that matter, like rational foreign policy, the ecomomy, health care, education. Leave the morals alone. We elect an administrator, not a preacher. Well, some do anyway, me for sure.

Well Amy, any kudos you got from me for your earlier post just went out the window. SZ, you are totally right, what ever happened to separation of church and state? I am tired of how much religion is constantly pulled into our public political sphere. I'm trying to think back to Reagan and Bush I, and I honestly don't think that this 'civil religion' was ever as heavy handed as it has been for the last 8 years. Is it just me or with folks like Amy in the MSM pushing this in our faces, isn't it enough already?

Being an atheist in America, I'm a strong advocate of religious freedom. So it's fine with me if our President desires the counsel and blessing of various clergy.
Given his Christianity, I think I'm even OK with him honoring this "tradition" of a National Prayer Service, assuming it's neither obligatory nor false-hearted pandering.
Further, I'll grant a role for "civil religion" in the sense that it's nice for religious people to be civil about their religion, as opposed to pushy or even militant. So I'll agree that it's nice that these people are willing to acknowledge the secular world as having some relevance and significance.
However, I'll object to capital-C "Civil Religion" where such clergy are presumed to have some moral authority over our government or its leaders. Subtle theocracy is still theocracy. So please don't insist that such ceremonies serve an important governmental function, or presume that they can provide secular guidance that isn't available from secular sources.

1984, eh stuart? That would be about when Saint Ronnie was declaring that government IS the problem. Too bad Amy and the other Villagers can't see that religion IS the problem. By the way, Amy: were you asked your religious preference in your job application at Time? In addition to "God," what other supernatural beings do you believe in?

Speaking of ceremony, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1:
~
Upon the king! let us our lives, our souls,
Our debts, our careful wives,
Our children and our sins lay on the king!
We must bear all. O hard condition,
Twin-born with greatness, subject to the breath
Of every fool, whose sense no more can feel
But his own wringing! What infinite heart's-ease
Must kings neglect, that private men enjoy!
And what have kings, that privates have not too,
Save ceremony, save general ceremony?
And what art thou, thou idle ceremony?
What kind of god art thou, that suffer'st more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers?
What are thy rents? what are thy comings in?
O ceremony, show me but thy worth!
What is thy soul of adoration?
Art thou aught else but place, degree and form,
Creating awe and fear in other men?
Wherein thou art less happy being fear'd
Than they in fearing.
What drink'st thou oft, instead of homage sweet,
But poison'd flattery? O, be sick, great greatness,
And bid thy ceremony give thee cure!
Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
Will it give place to flexure and low bending?
Canst thou, when thou command'st the beggar's knee,
Command the health of it? No, thou proud dream,
That play'st so subtly with a king's repose;
I am a king that find thee, and I know
'Tis not the balm, the sceptre and the ball,
The sword, the mace, the crown imperial,
The intertissued robe of gold and pearl,
The farced title running 'fore the king,
The throne he sits on, nor the tide of pomp
That beats upon the high shore of this world,
No, not all these, thrice-gorgeous ceremony,
Not all these, laid in bed majestical,
Can sleep so soundly as the wretched slave,
Who with a body fill'd and vacant mind
Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distressful bread;
Never sees horrid night, the child of hell,
But, like a lackey, from the rise to set
Sweats in the eye of Phoebus and all night
Sleeps in Elysium; next day after dawn,
Doth rise and help Hyperion to his horse,
And follows so the ever-running year,
With profitable labour, to his grave:
And, but for ceremony, such a wretch,
Winding up days with toil and nights with sleep,
Had the fore-hand and vantage of a king.
The slave, a member of the country's peace,
Enjoys it; but in gross brain little wots
What watch the king keeps to maintain the peace,
Whose hours the peasant best advantages.

I definitely agree with the sick of religion in government sentiments. I think it would have the founding fathers rolling in their graves as it has flourished in the last century. For example, the inaugural prayer and service came into being in the 1930's. The phrase "one nation under god" on our money and the "one nation under god" in the pledge of allegiance were both 20th century additions. The so-help-me-god and the the bible part aren't even constitutionally required. Not to mention the fact that Christianity is a pre-requisite of public office, especially the presidency. The tradition argument just doesn't hold up.

I am generally of the live-and-let-live attitude, especially concerning the individual. However, this is all becoming far too much for me to stomach when it is in the public eye and I am forced to listen to multiple exclusionary prayers (although I appreciated the non-believer shout out). The other thing that bugs me about religion is that they are MANDATED to convert and evangelize and have to think their religion is The One. I can tolerate religion, but can religion tolerate me?

I am on board with Joe on the religious thinking they have ownership of ethics. Secular reasoning is just as good (arguably better) as religious reasoning in supporting morality.

Plus church is just so damned boring.

"I've sat through a lot of these things and this was first time I was struck by the useful secular purposes that civil religion can hold."
†
This is a great point, Amy. But it is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.
†
Sure, the cynics will say "What can a philosophy that celebrates an omniscient, ominpotent being who, almost sociopathically, permits unmitigated and incalculable human suffering, from the holocaust to a tsunami, tell us about the need for our leaders to lead by example?"
†
To them, I say..."get your own blog."

I'd like to suggest that most of us are interested in our government performing less ceremony, observing less ritual, putting on less morality-show theater, and just getting the crap on with the real tasks of governing that affect our daily lives.
.
And please get government out of religion. It was hard enough to keep a handle on things before politicians and bureaucrats inserted themselves into the process. The church functions badly when it accepts the role of ladder to prosperity and power.

It all comes down to the voters and the internet. There is a significant segment of the voting population that insists on a continuous display of piety and flag waving by it's elected officials. Look back at the "serious" issues of flag pins and Obama not having his hand over his heart at one campaign event where Hillary did. Anyone with a cell phone camera can "prove" a person isn't patriotic or a real christian by taking a quick picture or video and posting it online out of context. Fox News then breaks the story and the wingnuts take flight. As much as we'd like to pretend that the average voter can see through this sort of the thing, the truth is that they don't. Atheists are at least 5% of the population. How many of the 545 members of the house and senate are atheists? I would guess the actual number is at least representative of the population as a whole, but it's political suicide to admit it. It's much safer to go to church, sing the songs, bow your head at the appropriate time and then get on with business.

The other thing that bugs me about religion is that they are MANDATED to convert and evangelize and have to think their religion is The One.
.
In all fairness, this only applies to some faiths. How many Taoists or Wiccans do you have getting up in your grill?

If a Christian is getting up in your grill, then he/she/it is out of bounds, in my long-expensive-and-often-frustrating-seminary-trained opinion. If he/she/it doesn't walk the walk, you're under no obligation to listen to the talk.

That obviously includes listening to me, BTW. If I were out b_tt-sl@mming a sixteen-year-old girl and paying her off with money embezzled from the church, you'd have no way to tell just from reading my posts.

Cliff, Thanks for mentioning the Wiccans. A Wiccan gave me a pristine copy of John & Yoko's Two Virgins album back in the early 70's because I trimmed a tree for her. They've been on my good list since then.

There is a significant segment of the voting population that insists on a continuous display of piety and flag waving by it's elected officials...Look back at the "serious" issues of flag pins and Obama not having his hand over his heart at one campaign event where Hillary did...As much as we'd like to pretend that the average voter can see through this sort of the thing, the truth is that they don't.
.
Umm...Whatever the merits of your proposition, it seems that your example disproves your argument.
.
Barack Obama did win the Democratic primary.
.
Barack Obama did win the Presidency.
.
The "average voter" whom you say is so concerned with lapel flag-pins and such obviously did not discard the Obama candidacy due to these supposedly toxic non-observances of condescending, professional political consultant-mandated rituals.
.
These days, the people who really and truly put such symbolism above getting us out of the mess of the past eight years are largely confined to parts of the country where overt Christian declarations are dog-whistle appeals to Confederate chauvinism, and where people voted Republican in 2006 and 2008. The folks who need their televangelist-shouting, flag-printed tie-wearing, "real American-ism" pandered to above all else do represent a significant portion of the electorate --they're the 25 percent of the country who would have voted Bush in for a third term!
.
It's not 1984. The majority of the country doesn't need to draw distinctions between themselves and the dirty f-ing hippies anymore. They can see through this kind of pandering. The proof is in your very example; regular Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama.
.
Is publicly spurning belief in spiritual rewards and punishments the safest thing to do politically? Of course not. But in 2008 the "safest" thing to do or be didn't win the Presidency, and we've got to come to terms with the fact that circumstances and the electorate have changed significantly since the formula for "safe" was determined by the Beltway political establishment bubble and our out-of-touch national press corps.

FT - a lot of Christians I know aren't confrontational about it (the best try to lead by example), but there are those who take the commandment to spread the Good News to heart, and that's where I and a lot of others get aggravated.
Would that everyone took your stance.

Cliff: True that. I was referring to the Major Religions. The minor hippie religions are fine with me and are indeed not in my grill. Though a few of the smellier practitioners sat next to me in class in Boulder and I was sure they were violating my Right to Fresh Air.

And for the record, the only non-theist in either house ever is Pete Stark from California. Although a member of congress since 1973, he first admitted his nontheism in 2007.

I'm trying, Cliff, one b!tch-slapping at a time - but I'll tell you what, reasoning with first-year seminarians can be like throwing peas against a wall.
.
To be fair, I have had charge of an "old folks" Bible study group for almost five years now, and we've taught each other a lot. Progress is possible.

Well, Caroline Kennedy opting out (uh huh, due to Teddy's health) is a good step--against nepotism, ceremony and our budding aristocracy, though DP will likely pick Cuomo.
~
Random thoughts: 1) Typing while attempting to eat large fried spheres of pork and potato with c-sticks, well, it ain't easy 2) Thrilled yesterday to find Brooklyn Lager (pre-prohibition, the recipe as opposed to the sell-by date) in my local grocer, the latest in a line of random western beers available here in the land of erect Kirin. OK, time, sadly for work. Cheers from J-town.

And speaking of religion, have you blokes read Updike's Rabbit, Run? How I (purportedly a lit teacher) managed to avoid it all these years is beyond me, but the minister character is pure genius.

stuartzechman, I don't believe my example either disproves or proves my argument at all. My whole point is that it is much easier to play along in order to get along. If having to make your christianity or patriotism more overt than you would normally do avoids inflaming a voting segment...why not do it? Let's be realistic. There are many one issue voters out there. Abortion, gay rights or guns are just three. I agree with you on your take on about the demographic that would have voted for Bush for a third term. But why not go ahead and either avoid or limit actions that get them frothing at the mouth? 53% of the vote was impressive, but 55 or 57 would have been even better. Adding Missouri and possibly West Virginia would have been icing on the cake. As well as Obama did, he still managed to take only 45% of the white vote. I supported Obama, voted for him, donated money and went door to door for him. Believe me, being a liberal atheist and trying to convince some red neck crackers that Obama was a good christian and not a socialist muslim wasn't all that high on my fun list.

Though a few of the smellier practitioners sat next to me in class in Boulder and I was sure they were violating my Right to Fresh Air.
.
I'm envisioning a new provision in the Bill of Rights titled, "The Right to Be Free of Your Stank Ass." I'll put it on Obama's to-do list.

While we're at it we should add another provision banning leggings titled "The Right to Be Free of Your Skank Ass". Now THAT'S change!

AS was right in the first place – Good Lord, enough with the religion already! Even more so after reading this post.