So why do we need an invocation and benediction at the inauguration?

[canis_lupus]

Sure it's a tradition, but if we were that hung up on tradition why don't our presidents go back to wearing powdered wigs?

America is a pluralistic society. The majority of Americans who follow a religion are Christian, but Christianity exists on a continuum that runs from extreme right to far left. Then we have people from all other faith traditions and persons of no faither traditions at all. And we are all Americans.

So do we really need to offer state-sponsored prayer when a new president takes office? Seems like all the controversy could be avoided if, during his or her inaugural address, an incoming president would simply say somethings like, "I humbly ask that each of you keep us, your elected officials, in your prayers or thoughts as take office."

[rsmith6621]

1. If PE Obama was not a Christian...

.....I'm sure your thought would have some merit.......BUT!!!! Obama is also a Christian and this is his party and he can decide what aspects of the ceremony he wants to include just like you are able to determine the brand of Beer you serve your guest at a party you are hosting...

[patrice]

2. It would be cool if there were some completely secular rites for recognizing the importance of

certain shared occasions.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I agree. Also, why have a bigot pray? nt

[Clio the Leo]

4. Because those in charge are among the 75% of the US population...

.... who claim to be Christian, or one of the 5.5 million members of the Jewish faith in the US or they have some other religious affiliation. Since practically all of the people in charge hold elected office, they are honoring the faiths of the overwhelming majority of their constituency.

I realize that this is America and we protect the rights/values of EVERYONE, including minority groups ... or at least we're supposed to, but you know what they say about the squeaky wheel and the grease.

The Presidency will be up for grabs in 2016 ... find you a good candidate who's an athiest ... or an agnostic ... or whichever you prefer .... and get out there and start knocking on some doors. ;)

But this time, you helped elect a Christian .... and he and I millions of others are gonna take a few minutes out of the day on 1/20 and pray .... we appreciate your patience. :pals:

[firedupdem]

8. Amen to that...I'm not always a good Christian but I appreciate a prayer for Obama and this country!

O8)

[treestar]

5. Amen!

This is something we need to give up, like prayer in the schools and before Senate sessions. Look at all the trouble it has caused. The RW can STFU, they have churches to pray in!

Nothing stops me from praying in church or anywhere, that is religious freedom, not the government trying to prop up my particular religion.

what amazes me is that religious people have such trouble understanding this. They think that if we cut out Christian prayers that it is "persecution," but by having the govt. identify with Christianity, all they do is undermine their own religious freedom, by having the govt. identify with one, they make it possible it could someday change to another religion.

[Undercurrent]

6. We don't need them, and I don't want them.

When there is a prayer at a public function, it's just an excuse for me to take a pee break, or grab a snack.

[AntiFascist]

7. Unfortunately right-wing Christianity still has a lot of power and influence...

particularly in the wake of the Bush Administration.

[rasputin1952]

9. A generic prayer harms no one...

Throughout history, prayers have been said to various deities, requesting all kinds of things.

A generic prayer asks for guidance, protection and wisdom, all good things. If one is a believer in a religion, this is generally a positive experience, if one is a non-believer, no harm is done, they just shuffle it off.

Why there is any "passion" about a generic prayer is beyond me. They are very short, usually positive and give people a chance to get that last snack before the show. No matter who gives the invocation, where the invocation is made or the length of said invocation, someone, somewhere, will be offended. Most however will sit back and let it go.

Seems to me, that is the best way to deal with the situation.

[ThomCat]

10. That is not so.

Even a generic prayer has the effect of excluding athiests. And as we have very clearly seen this week, the person chosen to give that generic prayer can be critically important, and can have devastating consequences.

Only people who won't be harmed, and who don't empathise with those who will be harmed, can see that prayer as harmless.

[ThomCat]

11. That is not so.

Even a generic prayer has the effect of excluding athiests. And as we have very clearly seen this week, the person chosen to give that generic prayer can be critically important, and can have devastating consequences.

Only people who won't be harmed, and who don't empathise with those who will be harmed, can see that prayer as harmless.

[rasputin1952]

12. Tell me how a prayer can harm an atheist...

Logically, why would an atheist even care?

A generic prayer does not put atheists, or anyone else, in harms way. It may, as I stated above, be seen as offensive to some, but again, where is the harm? There is no call for death, imprisonment or anything else for those of other faiths/no faith.

I have to wonder if there would be such hew and cry if the invocation or benediction were given by a Rabbi, a Mullah, a Buddhist priest, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccan...someone, somewhere, would be offended, but no "harm" would be done.

[ThomCat]

13. Prayers at official events reinforce the ties between religion

and government, and reinforce the crazy belief that the US was founded and intended as a Christian Nation. By insisting that prayers have to be told at official events believers constantly pusht he idea that it's their government and their country.

Only one open athiest has been elected to congress. Do you think that's no relevant or related?

Athiests are hated and excluded, and by insisting on prayers we are symbolicly excluded from representation.

If your definition of harm is so narrow that it only means physical harm then perhaps no athiest has been hurt, but then again how have you looked to see if how violently people have been attacked for being "godless?"

Though, if you think giving honor and prestige to a bigot doesn't hurt the LGBT community, I can see why you wouldn't think putting prayers at every major official event doesn't hurt athiests. You simply ignore the opinions of the people who would know.

[rasputin1952]

15. You are entitled to your opinion...

but there is vast difference between "being harmed", and "being aggravated". Seems to me, the entire object of atheism is to be seen as godless.

I don't hate anyone, I will do no harm to anyone, I consider myself a Christian, but belong to no formal aspect of religion. I believe in what Jesus spoke of about forgiveness, empathy, caring for those who are afflicted w/various situations.

Anyone can stand up and ask for unity, justice, compassion, understanding, guidance or anything that is positive and beneficial; I have no qualms about religion or lack thereof. What I find offensive is a lack of forgiveness, hypocrisy, denial of human rights or the inability to see that the possibility for change exists in everyone who will allow a little reason to enter their thought process.

I have never been able to hold a grudge, that may be a flaw in some people's thought, but not in mine.

[ThomCat]

16. People aren't athiests to "be seen as godless"

That's a rather insulting definiton. We're not trying to make a statement and parade it in front of your church. We just don't believe in religious myths, and we don't want them in our laws or in our goverment.

The point of being an athiest is to live a life based on reason.

Clearly your definition of harm is very narrow. You don't think that excluding people harms them.

I wonder if you've ever claimed that people were "attacking christianity" for less than that. I wonder if you are consistent in your definition of harm regardless of which side someone is on.

[rasputin1952]

17. Don't read too much into "being seen as godless"...

isn't that the definition of atheism, not believing on a deity? It was not intended as any kind of "condemnation".

I hold no animosity toward you for your choice, it makes no difference to me one way or the other. As with all belief/non-belief systems, everyone has the right to choose what they feel is right for them.

If, in the invocation or benediction, there is a call for demeaning others because of their belief system, I will one of the first to be heard saying that that notion is horrid.

Just as I think you can believe in whatever you want, I would think, you would accord others the same.

Think about this for just a second, and I'm not trying to be snarky about this, but really, is a prayer that is generic in nature, condemns no one, asks for unity and justice, requests wisdom and thought...really that bad? After all, that's what these things really are, and those that will listen, whether they believe or not, might actually feel these are good things? W/O the religious aspect, I should think everyone would see these as good intentions.

[ThomCat]

18. If religion was optional

then I wouldn't mind it. The benedictions could be held separately for only those people who wished to attend. Why not simply give a speech calling for peace and justice and unity and not make it a prayer then? Wouldn't that truly make it open to everyone? Why must it always be a prayer?

But unfortuantely, they're effectively mandatory. If they're not held it's seen as an attack on religion. If a politician didn't attend he or she would be blasted for not respecting religion. Attending against our will is supposed to be harmless, but not attending is a grave offense. That double standard always shows that there is a problem.

[rasputin1952]

20. I would be fine w/that as well...

personally, I don't see a "need" for such things, but others do. I am willing to go along w/it, what I really want to hear is a clear voice from Obama, telling us his plans, showing some leadership at the helm instead of the rough-shod way the current buffoon has gone about things. I look forward to an intelligent individual leading the nation away from the moronic decisions the bush administration and getting us back on track.

To me, everything else, except the actual swearing in, is peripheral.

[ThomCat]

19. If religion was optional

then I wouldn't mind it. The benedictions could be held separately for only those people who wished to attend. Why not simply give a speech calling for peace and justice and unity and not make it a prayer then? Wouldn't that truly make it open to everyone? Why must it always be a prayer?

But unfortuantely, they're effectively mandatory. If they're not held it's seen as an attack on religion. If a politician didn't attend he or she would be blasted for not respecting religion. Attending against our will is supposed to be harmless, but not attending is a grave offense. That double standard always shows that there is a problem.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Tradition is a pretty persuasive argument for this historic occasion.

I am concerned that some people are so beyond head exploding level of anger right now that they are going to purposely miss history. We've waited eight long-ass years for this party 1-20-09. We, the Democratic Party, have elected the first black president who has an 82% approval rating right right now and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. I hope people think long and hard about opting out of witnessing that day.