the whining here about religion being included in the inauguration

[cali]

would be amusing if it didn't reveal how little those complaining most vociferously, know about the separation of church and state. Nothing in the inauguration violated it. Nothing.

Furthermore, the President along with most Americans is religious.

For that matter, yesterday along with the inauguration we remembered a deeply religious man: The Reverend Martin Luther King.

No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe.

[WilliamPitt]

1. ...aaaaaaaand religious invocations have been involved in all 57 inaugurations.

Go look up JFK's inaugural speech. He invoked God and his faith at least three separate times.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. Amazing how they've slipped that one past us...

Every four years for more than two centuries.

They're clever, those Christians...

[SoapBox]

104. chuckle...

You said it perfectly.

[whathehell]

118. Yeah...

because the only "religious" people in America are Christian

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

122. Christians aren't the only religious people in America...

some of them are Catholics.

[whathehell]

138. No, in fact some of them are Jews and Muslims.

Sorry if you thought I'd "bite" on the Catholics vs. Christians shit.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

148. Party Pooper....(nt)

[demwing]

187. And Hindus and Sikhs

Jains, Shinto, Rastafarians, Buddhists (do they really count as religious?), Bahá'í Faith, Zoroastrians, Neopagans, Pagans, and Unitarian Universalists.

I may have left out a few score more...

[AlbertCat]

57. aaaaaaaand religious invocations have been involved in all 57 inaugurations.

So?
It's been unconstitutional 57 times.

[kestrel91316]

106. No, it's not. The inauguration is not a government function - it's a very public

coming out party.

Do you also feel that the presidential oath as specified in the Constitution violates the separation of church and state??

If Americans United for the Separation of Church and State isn't up in arms about this, I'm not going to be either.

[SCantiGOP]

125. the oath as specified in the constitution

does not end with "so help me God." That is an add-on that has been included since Washington's first inauguration, but it is not a part of the oath.
I don't contend it is a violation of church and state. I think it is in bad taste to force your religion on a crowd that you know includes many people of other faiths as well as non-believers. And, to use the Bible to make an argument against the practice, this passage from Matthew 6:6 says the whole practice is hypocritical:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men ... But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou has shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

[MADem]

193. The oath giver (as someone who has taken and given many oaths over the years)

customarily asks if the oath taker prefers "swear" or "affirm" (for the people who don't like to swear) and also asks if they want that tag line on the end. It makes for less fuss to have those things decided before the ceremony begins.

I've given the oath without the "so help me" phrase a number of times, and also with the "affirm" --though only a time or two on that score.

[SCantiGOP]

197. I was on a jury once as an alternate

Had a trial for a guy accused of discharging a weapon out of a moving car. He took the stand, and when they started to give him the oath, he stopped them and said he would prefer to give a secular affirmation, which of course they did. I looked at the expressions on the faces of some of the jurors and thought "give the guy credit for standing up for his beliefs, but not a cool move when you are facing potential jail time from a jury in red-as-hell-state South Carolina." I didn't get on the jury, but found out later they deadlocked and had to call a mistrial, so at least one of the jurors was able to get beyond the fact that the guy was a heathen.
Typical South Carolinian is typified by a caller I heard on a radio show once who, in reference to Muslims, made the brilliant observation that "they don't believe in Jesus or nothing." The host was forced to observe that, if your religion can lead you to strap on a suicide vest, you probably believe in something pretty strongly.

[MADem]

200. I gave the oaths in a military environment, often to people getting promoted or re-enlisting.

I always asked ahead of time. The court really should have worked that out ahead of time, too, I should think.

The only time people even notice is when someone calls attention to a difference. If you just get up there and throw down with the "affirm" or skip the "so help me" bit, no one notices--they're too busy applauding after you tell the poor sap, er, lucky sport "Congratulations--you're Uncle Sam's for X more years!"

[cthulu2016]

146. Ah! The old "constitutional argument from someone who hasn't read the constittion" trick...

never gets old.

[jeff47]

162. Actually, it is a government function.

That's why there was a problem when a president refused to be sworn in on a Sunday. It resulted in the only time the Speaker of the House has served as President.

Now, if you're going to claim that this one wasn't official, since that happened on Sunday, you run into the problem that we taxpayers paid for a bunch of people to attend it in their official government capacity. That makes it a government function.

[caseymoz]

167. Taking the Oath of Office isn't a government function?

That's the central act of the Inauguration. It's a government function. In case you want to deny it, remember the Muslim member of Congress who took his oath on the Quran?

There's all kinds of redutcio ad absurdums that hiccup from your title. Would we have celebrated said those prayers, had that Bible for him to put his hand on if the president didn't take the Oath of Office? Isn't the Oath specified in the Constitution? I think think your denial cuts so deep it makes your argument bleed.

Any practice that makes a claim or presumes that a spiritual being exists is religious, because it presupposes faith, a "belief in." If you ask God to help you, then it's religious.

The Oath shouldn't have "so help me God" in it. He shouldn't be swearing it on a religious book. If we've done that it that way 57 times, we've done it wrong 57 times. Nothing odd about that. We're eternal screw ups. We did that slavery thing wrong for 87 years.

Any other celebration around the Oath of Office, you could go for broke with the God references without violating the Constitution. But during that Oath, if the President is religious, maybe he just should have enough faith that God is still with him for those two sentences. If not, maybe he should say a prayer before and after.

[MADem]

195. It's not a "taxpayer funded" thing, either--it is mostly funded by DONORS.

The taxpayers do pay (from public funds) for crowd security, but they would pay for that if a dancing unicorn exhibition was substituted for the invocation and benediction. The parades, the luncheons, the ceremony and the balls are all donor-supported drills.

Of course, a ton of tax revenue is raised as a consequence of the event to more than offset the cost of that crowd security by the crowds, themselves. They buy food, lodging, souvenirs, a little bit of this-n-that, gas to get home, etc., and all that stuff accrues local taxes that go into the coffers and pay for the police overtime and the extra street sweeping, etc.

[jeff47]

161. ...aaaaaaand slaves worked on all inaugurations until emancipation.

Since it was tradition, that means it was OK, right?

You seem to be operating under the illusion that people pointing out there should be a separation of church and state when we are supposed to have a separation of church and state are screaming-level angry.

We're not. We're used to being second-class. But that doesn't mean we can't point it out.

[Luminous Animal]

189. Invocations didn't start until 1937.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayers_at_United_States_presidential_inaugurations

[NoOneMan]

2. I agree. We all should lower our standards

Tradition and all that good stuff. We know he is religious, so why do we continue to criticize this character flaw as it intersect public politics?

We should instead spend out time whining about whiners

[Estevan]

6. So being religious is a character flaw?

You need something to do.

[NoOneMan]

8. Whoa. Thats certainly direct

I don't know how to respond. Does anyone else agree with that?

[Sekhmets Daughter]

32. You did call it a character flaw...

did you expect total agreement?

A Socialist, who also identified as a Christian, would have a better chance of becoming president than an atheist in this country, today. That may change, but it will take generations to accomplish. I can't even begin to quantify the amount of nonsense that we'd be listening to today had prayer been taken out of yesterday's celebrations. That torture is too high a price to pay.

[NoOneMan]

39. But the last time there was a real socialist Christian...

We hung him on the cross.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

45. Oh please..."we" didn't hang anyone.

He was hung on a cross by pagans at the instigation of an established religion. Had the choice been between him and an atheist, the atheist would have been crucified.

[NoOneMan]

52. Surely that alternative may of been preferable

We wouldn't waste time praying to the atheist at political events 2000 years later.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

65. So you object to wasting time?

Look, the establishment clause makes it unconstitutional for a 'state' religion to be established. It does not make it unconstitutional for people to practice their religion. Most Americans still lay claim to a religious belief of some variety. Pres. Obama has laid claim to Christianity, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose day it was, obviously was not an atheist.

[NoOneMan]

73. Wasting time is fine...my specialty

Perpetuating establishment myth and training minds to believe faith-based doctrine isn't wasting time. Its highly effective.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

100. But the training must take place when the 'subject' is very young...

just as the indoctrination does.

[NoOneMan]

110. I used to agree,

but now I see no one is too old for stupidity

[Sekhmets Daughter]

116. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I do know this, you are not going to change the hearts of religious people by attacking their superstitions. Religion is not something that lends itself to rational argument.

[NoOneMan]

132. I don't need to change anyone's hearts

We are all on our way out anyway--mostly due to irrationality.

[demwing]

135. So your contribution to this thread has been, what?

whining?

I mean, since you have no need to change hearts and we're all dead in our shoes anyway...

[NoOneMan]

139. I don't believe I whined once

Frankly, I've gotten a kick out of all this whining about whiners shit.

Majority dog-piles rule!

[demwing]

141. more whining

about whether you whined

[NoOneMan]

142. Ditto

More whining about people you dismiss as "whiners".

Now, by almighty God, are we getting somewhere!

[demwing]

155. now you're praying

Will you now whine about yourself?

[whathehell]

133. Sorry bro, but your Atheist Age of Aquarius has not yet arrived...

and probably won't for awhile,

so maybe you should retire the whine and waste

your time a little more creatively.

[NoOneMan]

136. Yeah, we are still in the age of an invisible best friend impregnating a blessed virgin

I'm glad we aren't getting silly yet.

[whathehell]

145. Oh, we're still in the age of an invisible best friend commanding Abraham to kill his own son

and getting us seventy two virgins when we die and never eating

PORK and wearing little round things on our heads.


Are we getting silly yet?

[NoOneMan]

147. Surely not as silly as a golden atheist age!

(I'm not even an atheist btw)

[whathehell]

152. More so.

I'm an agnostic, btw.

[NoOneMan]

154. Thats a good thing to be

Its more "believable" than everything else.

[whathehell]

217. It's not bad

Agnostics "know" what they don't know.

[dakota_democrat]

68. Jesus wasn't Christian, he was Jewish. eom

[NoOneMan]

70. Its an old joke fyi

Think about it.

[cleanhippie]

76. Who is this "we" you are talking about? It's hard to hang an imaginary figure on anything.

Please, kindly do not include me in your fantasy.

[NoOneMan]

81. Civilization

His words were not deemed (perhaps incorrectly), at the time, to be optimal at perpetuating growth and spread of civilization. Times changed, as did those messages. And they are changing again.

BTW, you think Jesus didn't exist at all?

[cleanhippie]

86. Whose words? I've no idea what you are talking about.

Whose words? What words? I'm not following you.

[billh58]

158. I believe that he is

trying to tell you that he has a red pencil box. At least, that's what I got out of it...

[pnwmom]

143. My, aren't you superior?

[onehandle]

3. I was offended by his delivering his speech in English.

Pig Latin too 'low brow' for the elitist?

[MineralMan]

4. Exactly.

It's just another way to bash President Obama. At least that's my opinion. A poor way, at that.

Any port in a storm, I suppose, for some.

And, as a disclaimer: I am an atheist, and have been since 1965. Religious expression doesn't bother me. I simply ignore it. I advise others to do the same if it assaults their sensibilities.

[Demo_Chris]

27. Ignoring it enables it, and that we should never do

Some of us are tired of seeing stone age mythology guiding society. The fact that these guys feel compelled to grovel to this nonsense is all the reason we need to say no more.

[MineralMan]

29. Nonsense.

Here, we have freedom of religion. That means people can worship or not worship, as they choose. Don't be silly. The President is a religious man. I am not a religious man. We both have the same rights. He can worship, and I can not worship. Cool!

[narnian60]

83. Thank you.

[RKP5637]

115. As long as people do not try to force their beliefs on others I'm OK with it all. I saw

it as tradition. I didn't hear any outrageous religious stuff espoused ... might have missed it, was listening in the background, but I don't think there was any ... Also, it was inclusive of LGBT which I found refreshing.

[Nye Bevan]

5. I wonder whether the true purpose of those butthurt threads is to make atheists look petty

and silly. Because in that case they have succeeded.

[Surya Gayatri]

38. ^^^This^^^

Intolerance and dogmatism, thy name is atheism.

Some of them appear just as hidebound and doctrinaire as good ole Torquemada.
.

[AlbertCat]

63. Intolerance and dogmatism, thy name is atheism.

What a laugh!

"Some of them appear just as hidebound and doctrinaire as good ole Torquemada. "

Only to those who know nothing else and think everyone should think a like they do.

Go to church and pray. In public government events, prayers have no place. You can all stroll down to the nearest church and have an prayer orgy after the public event, no?

[demwing]

140. No

It's a party, not an official government function (which happened a few days ago, without the religion).

[jeff47]

163. It's an official government party.

You can tell because your tax dollars paid the government employees that attended it.

[demwing]

177. It's party, with government officals in attendence

you can tell because of the millions of private dollars that had to be raised to pay for it

[jeff47]

184. They paid for the stage and other physical things

The employees did not take time off to attend.

[MADem]

180. Those salaried employees would have been paid on that day if they went to a strip club or a polo

match.

They don't pay Congress or the Commander in Chief by the hour, and Inauguration Day is a paid holiday even if there's no benediction or invocation involved.

The argument is not supported, I'm afraid.

[jeff47]

186. Actually, the bookeeping is done by the hour

To ensure that federal money isn't being spent on things like campaign activities.

Yes, it has no effect on their paycheck, but it's tracked. And they didn't take time off for the inauguration.

[riderinthestorm]

198. The police, Secret Service, sanitation crews - they were working a govt event on an official holiday

Some of those people were salaried. Some were hourly. Some were assigned anyway to work the holiday which means they get a flex day to take off some other time, some were getting OT - there's no way to issue a blanket statement about compensation.

But one thing's for sure, MANY if not most of the people working yesterday's event were working on taxpayer dime and we the taxpayers paid them "extra" for being there. Since MLK is an official holiday most of them would have had a paid day off nothing more but since they worked they not only received their compensation for yesterday (plus some of them got OT etc) but ALL of them also got a flex day to take on another day at taxpayer expense.

[MADem]

199. The overtime is paid by the increase in tax revenue--the District usually makes money on these

things.

There are meal taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, hotel taxes....and all those attendees buy a little this or that and fill the coffers to more than offset any overtime that has to be paid.

Secret Service are salaried--their job is to protect the POTUS no matter where he goes. Cops get overtime, but a regular crew of those guys is expected to work even on holidays (they don't all take off on Xmas, either, for example). Further, they were heavily augmented by military personnel, who would be paid the same each month if they were standing as a live barricade, marching in a parade, or sitting on their ass in front of a tee vee--they don't get an extra dime OR a guaranteed extra day off (if the boss is nice, they might, but that's a personal decision--most would not have had to work on a Monday holiday, save those with "the duty&quot .

It's a popular fiction that the taxpayers are greatly burdened by this event. It's just not true. The taxpayers who paid for this party were the taxpayers who ATTENDED the party. The Congress authorizes money to set up the stage and the sound/video system on the west front and decorate it appropriately, and lay out the seating/standing, but that's pretty much it. All that is done well ahead of time, too, by people who work for the Architect of the Capitol and the NPS. The people getting paid, most of them, would have been paid anyway, and the increase in revenue via taxes on the crowds visiting and staying and buying and eating more than compensates for the additional outlay of overtime funds to pay hourly personnel. The balls are funded via donor contributions and ticket sales.

DC cops don't complain about demonstrations or a massive influx of visitors, and are generally very cheerful when they take place, no matter who is doing the demonstrating or why the folks are visiting. They know that large crowds fund their overtime, so it's a win-win for them.

http://planning.washington.org/planning/travel-professionals/dc-in-a-box/city-fact-sheet
DC welcomes approximately 16 million visitors each year, generating an estimated $5.6 billion in visitor spending for the city alone.

[riderinthestorm]

201. The Office of Budget and Mgmt estimates 2009's inauguration cost taxpayers in excess of $50 million

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/16/news/economy/inauguration_costs/

Once you have the parties and the ceremony, the tab has just started growing.

The total cost of the inauguration to the federal government is $49 million, according to Abigail Tanner, spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget.

That $49 million includes a $15 million appropriation which has already been appropriated to the District of Columbia to help pay for the inauguration expenses. It also includes money to pay for the Secret Service during the inauguration and the military personnel during the parade following the swearing-in ceremony.

Meanwhile, the governors of Virginia and Maryland, and the mayor of Washington sent a letter to the federal government estimating that the inauguration was going to cost them a combined $75 million - $47 million for the District alone - for transportation and law enforcement which the federal government (paid when the final bill comes in).


The swearing in of SCOTUS, members of Congress etc doesn't consume even a fraction of taxpayer dollars....



Its not just a wash I guess is the bottom line.

I didn't even try to figure out 2013 yet.

I haven't given it a thought whether this is a valid governmental expense. Now that I've seen the numbers I'd like to think about it. That's a lot of $$ for a swearing in ceremony that's got this much religiosity wrapped around it. I know I'd feel the same whether this was a Dem or Rethug.

[MADem]

204. That's "fake accounting," though. You're only reading one side of the ledger.

There is, in many cases, no "actual expense." Example--military personnel.

Every command in the greater DC area is ordered to fork over a bunch of people. These people are on salary. Depending on the size of your installation or unit, you could be throwing five at them or a hundred or more. These people, the ones who line the parades, do some marching, direct people to their seats, etc., have to go off and work for the Inaugural Committee, but there's no "extra money" that is paid out to them. They're local--they just go to a different place for their job in the weeks ahead of the Inauguration, and they rehearse and practice. A value is assigned to their contribution--but that money would have been spent ANYWAY, even if there was no Inauguration.

What happens to the work they would have been doing had they not been called away? Some other poor bastard does it--instead of coming in at eight and leaving at four, people come in earlier, leave later, work through lunch, and take work home. They don't get paid "extra." They're on salary too--they just work a little harder for a few weeks. Jobs that aren't critical get gundecked or shitcanned.

The Secret Service knows to budget for the Inauguration--it's a fixed expense, it occurs every four years, it's part of their submission to Congress. It isn't an "extraordinary expense." It's a recurring one. Besides, those guys are on salary, too---and how hard they work depends entirely on their principals. Dealing with a George Bush, who went to bed early and didn't like to get out and see the country or press the flesh, they had it easy. With a Clinton -- or even worse, the Gores (who used to run all over DC in parkas in the winter) they had their work cut out for them. But they cut their cloth according to the measure, and the measure varies with the principal they are protecting.

And if sixteen million visitors can generate almost six BILLION in revenue in a year just for the District...well, do the math. A million people came, saw, stayed, ate, and spent.

We know full well that people stayed in hotels (which were marked UP hundreds of dollars per room, with the attendant tax increases) in MD and VA as well-- and ate in MD/VA restaurants, and paid meal taxes--so a lot of that crying is BS, too--they get the money, they just get it on the back end in tax revenues.

The whole "outrageous expense" thing is just a canard.

The swearing in of SCOTUS doesn't attract a million people paying hotel taxes, sales taxes, airport taxes, meal taxes, etc. to DC either. The Inauguration is a four year revenue boost for the district....rather like the NH primary is a big boost for that state every four years, and the Iowa Caucuses bring big money to that state as well.

And the parties? They are donor funded through rich bums kicking in, sponsorships, and ticket sales. The government doesn't pay a red cent towards those.

[riderinthestorm]

206. Fake? Many (most) of those people would have had a federal holiday off.

Instead they got paid for being there AND got an extra paid day as well.

Sorry, I don't agree. It costs us. How much still awaits the final tally I guess.

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Will take some time to mull it over but to say the accounting is fake isn't accurate imho.

Thanks for a respectful convo though. You have no idea how much I relish stuff like this lately on this site. You are an angel....

[MADem]

210. No, that's not the case. It does seem that way at first blush, but when you get down in the weeds,

it's not a huge sacrifice by either the taxpayers OR the military participants.

When military commands hand over the personnel who are on loan to the Joint Inaugural Committee (and a military rep who works with them to coordinate all these souls), they usually don't get them back for a few days after the event. They aren't "working" all that time. They also aren't "working" a full day, every day that they're assigned to the committee--it's actually a mini vacation with short hours for most of those people, who are assigned to the Committee from November onward, many of them. It makes for a nice Christmas for those lucky few...they are expected to bust it a little bit on the actual day, but they've been coasting up to that point, so a bit of a push isn't out of line.

The donors, who fund the parade and balls and private parties--and there are a ton of 'em--were capped at a max of fifty grand each this time around. OPEN SECRETS is still irritated that they haven't gotten all the "detes" about the donations, but I promise you--the parties and parade are privately funded.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/01/obama-inaugural-donors.html

I am no angel, but I have worked on the periphery of an Inauguration, which is how I know about this stuff (Clinton 2).

[Capt. Obvious]

169. "It's a party, not an official government function...

"It's a party, not an official government function (which happened a few days ago, without the religion)."

The one that used the bible?

[demwing]

171. OK, Captain Obvious, without the *prayer*

which is what seems to have so many undies bunched

[Capt. Obvious]

176. "undies bunched"

Only undies I see bunched here are the people howling about atheists.

I'm sure there must be some group similar to the BOG where no criticism of religion is allowed. Your undies are sure to unbunch there.

[demwing]

178. Ha. I don't wear undies!

unless I'm in a church or a hospital. Two pair if it's a church in a hospital.

Guess I showed you...

[JaneyVee]

7. This is how Atheists go about converting people wrong.

Instead of tearing down others religion and offending them, stick to using facts. Atheists have facts on their side. Offensive billboards isn't converting anyone, but research, data, & historical analysis may.

[intheflow]

22. Oppressed trying like hell to become oppressors.

The human condition in a nutshell, becoming a form of that which you hate. And the beat goes on...

[SCVDem]

114. Now there's the main point!

If we wouldn't brainwash and indoctrinate our kids from birth to believe in fantasy written by stoned goat herders, we wouldn't have to appear as the bad guys when we attempt to offer a scientific version over the biblical narrative.

Seriously, Noah? Talking snakes and bushes?

It's time to leave these out of public discourse.

And no, we all don't trust in a god.

Let's start phasing these quaint expressions out and make a truly United States of no main belief, as the founders intended.

[emulatorloo]

9. Dumb-ass straw grasping by those who are mad Obama was re-elected.

[Arugula Latte]

26. Yeah. That's it. You know how those evil atheists all really secretly love Mitt.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Ya know, fuck it. Now atheists who may want less religiosity in civil ceremonies are Mitt lovers??

Really? That's pure bullshit.

I was thrilled that Obama was reelected. I worked on his campaigns (including state senator my friend). I believe in the Dems and was thrilled with Obama's speech yesterday. I loved the poet, the music, Chuck Schumer... I simply think we're overboard on the religion part.

And that makes me a Mitt lover??

Sorry but you could still change that and I'll delete my response but your charge is whack.

[rhett o rick]

10. I agree and for that very argument we should have formal prayer in schools.

The children dont have to pray. Should at least bow and move their mouths.

[cali]

15. and yet another person who doesn't even have a teeny eeny grasp

of the issue. proud of that, hon?

[rhett o rick]

20. Apparently you do dont see the parallel and have to resort to ridicule. But you are in the majority.

As you pointed out those that are not religious are in the minority and should know their place.

[muriel_volestrangler]

151. Give us a grasp, please

I'm serious. Why is prayer in schools unconstitutional, but prayer in government ceremonies so obviously OK with the constitution that hardly anyone questions it?

[quinnox]

11. they seem to have a real beef, and although I'm not an atheist, one can understand

why all the religious tomfoolery was offensive to them. I heard it was almost a full bore church religious revival service.

[emulatorloo]

14. --> I "heard" it was almost a full bore church religious revival <--

Don't believe everything you read on DU.

Non-believer here, what you "heard" is BS.

[quinnox]

19. maybe it is a question of perspective

I agree that things can be seen in many different ways and interpretations.

[cali]

17. you heard completely wrong and seeing as YOU didn't watch any of it, you have no basis

at all to comment. watch it and then way in.

[onehandle]

13. Obama, Biden attend inaugural prayer service at Washington National Cathedral

Uh oh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014376666

[AlbertCat]

67. Obama, Biden attend inaugural prayer service at Washington National Cathedral

That's great!

So why do we need it at the actual event?

[NCTraveler]

16. Yeah. I just posted to a thread...

What shocks me is the complete lack of understanding so many have with the separation of church and state. It boggles the mind.

[cali]

18. it's pretty shocking

and depressing. so much ignorance and bigotry all bundled up in one sweet little package.

[Demo_Chris]

46. No, it is you who do not understand

We get separation of church and state. No one here is suggesting that President Obama violated the LAW. We want something more.

We want imaginary friends -- all of them -- relegated to the fiction and mythology section where they properly belong. We are tired of seeing this hateful, sociopathic, bigotted bullshit given legitimacy by our leaders. The Bible our President placed his hand upon teaches that gays should be murdered, that women and blacks are inferior and mentally deficient, that witches should be killed, that the sexually liberated be tortured to fucking death. And I could go on, but how much freaking crazy do you need before you say that's plenty.

It's time we grow the fuck up and put that nonsense where it belongs.

[just1voice]

55. You're wasting your time and words on them

Many people play political games and think they can separate the games from real life. Others can easily see through their hypocrisy and have no patience for the hideous crimes they tacitly support. Sadly, it very rarely occurs to the hypocrites what they are.

[NCTraveler]

103. Where is the hypocrisy in the post that person was replying to?

The separation of church and state is real. It is life.

[NCTraveler]

101. That is so far out there that your problem cannot be corrected.

What does anything you just said have to do with the separation of church and state. I do hope you feel better now that you have gotten that out.

To equate Myrlie Evers Williams and her beliefs with anything you posted is sick. She is a civil right activist and ex charwoman of the NAACP. And Obamas faith in the Bible has brought him to the person he is today. I wonder why he doesn't want to "gays should be murdered, that women and blacks are inferior and mentally deficient, that witches should be killed, that the sexually liberated be tortured to fucking death."

Did I mention that the post you were replying to has to do with the separation of church and state.

[amuse bouche]

117. Oh my

I'm in love. Perfectly stated

[tama]

215. Sounds like

you just want to force your interpretation of imaginary friends (which many people, especially children, experience in various ways) over everybody else, and deny others the freedom to interprete and experience imaginary friends in other ways.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. The best was the attack on the Battle Hymn

Martin Luther King Jr.'s final words in his final speech, the night before he was assassinated: "So I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the coming of the Lord."

I mean, truly, a bigger "Duh" has yet to be seen on DU. Ridiculous.

[NoOneMan]

24. Yeah, his inauguration speech was spectacular

MLK being religious proves that all religious people are good. Or that some religious people are good. Or that some people are good despite being religious. Or that....

I mean. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[WolverineDG]

56. The tone-deafness on that complaint was extraordinary

never mind that that particular hymn has deep historical & cultural significance for African Americans and those of us aware of our families' ties to the abolition movement, in addition to its use by MLK.

I thought that particular hymn was very appropriate, especially since the inauguration took place MLK's actual birthday.

[Fumesucker]

23. Nadine's OP on the same subject yesterday was more dismissive and more condescending

Not only a day late but a dollar short too, cali.

[quinnox]

25. lol

you certainly have a way with words.

[leftstreet]

36. LOL

[Whisp]

28. K&R it would be easier to get everyone worldwide to recognize and

work on climate change - Everyone, even the Baggers

than to change that religious thingie.

Let's fight stuff that means something and is possible. It's ridiculous to kvetch about the bible and the inaug and all the crap. I'm an atheist but I just can't find any reason to pound on this aspect of traditional inaugeration/religious stuff.

[NoOneMan]

42. And since even this is futile

I guess we should just pack it in and call it a day.

[riderinthestorm]

47. Yup. Since its "traditional" (pay no mind that tradition is often code for continuing bigotry) nt

[Whisp]

113. I'm not sure what you are proposing here.

To take all reference of God and all that stuff out of ceremony and tradition just isn't going to happen in a short time. We can put in our opinions and hopefully one day Santa will be revealed to be a phony, but people just are not ready for it. This would be the most monumental task ever taken by the human race. Everything else would be dwarfed by this change.

What exactly do you think can be done to get rid of these fantasies that most people have?

I think it would take an alien spaceship invasion or something of that nature to have people change their minds - and even then the extremists will find a way to make it fit into the bible prophecies.

[NoOneMan]

134. What I am proposing?

Giving up. Basically.

The gig is up. Lunatics are running the asylum while its on fire and we have less than a century left on this gilded age.

Why waste our time? Why waste it with a nation? With a job? With religion? With hate? With bias.

Its getting down to the wire. It just doesn't matter any more. Flowery speeches. Political rhetoric. Appeals to a higher power, or even morality. Its all bullshit.

We're done. Why waste a minute more in this charade? Its not even a fun one. This blend of psychosis sucks.

If any of that makes sense to you, you might need a psychologist. I sure do.

[Whisp]

149. on religion, my god is Bill Maher

he's got the right idea.

[demosincebirth]

30. They just have to get over it or go see their therapist.

[Silent3]

31. So it would have to be a technical, clear Constitutional violation...

... of separation of church and state, with non-believers forced to watch, attend, and/or pray?

If it doesn't go that far, well, there's not the slightest thing you can see for anyone to be bothered by?

[cali]

43. why yes. as long as you are free to exercise your religious proclivities... or not

no there is nothing to be bothered about as far as the inauguration goes. Unless, of course, you enjoy high dudgeon and many here certainly do.

[Silent3]

48. So you'd have been just peachy with it...

...if, say, it turned out that few or no women were called upon to speak at the inaugural, so long as there wasn't any specific anti-woman policy agenda you could point to? And anyone who complained about sexism would have simply been engaged in "high dudgeon"?

[jeff47]

164. So Rick Warren was great in 2009?

He didn't say anything anti-gay at the inauguration, if I recall. So inviting him was just peachy-keen, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

33. At least they did the religious parts well this time. Some people miss the cultural aspects of

some of the materials, Battle Hymn was quoted by MLK Jr in the last line of his last speech. I thought the song was in tribute to him as well as just sounding fine out of the choir.
I loved the entire shindig. The speech by the President was great. That's what matters. But I loved everything about it except for Tony's Medici/Thomas Moore hat. Mercy.

[riderinthestorm]

34. That's it? Atheists are only "whining"? "Complaining vociferously"? Ignorant of US history?

Surely there are harsher adjectives you can use for atheists who dared speak!

Why there were entire screeds yesterday against anyone who even dared to use the word... "disappointed".

[joeybee12]

35. Unrec...for the use of of the word whining...

Some peopl were turned off by it...sorry if it offended you that they voiced their opinions.

[riderinthestorm]

44. Unfortunately telling atheists to STFU has a long history on DU, and gets applause

from more than a few DUers.

Of course, then there'd have to be some recognition that atheists actually know history, which Cali obviously believes we don't...

[LanternWaste]

58. Seems members of both sides of the issue enjoy a bit of...

Seems members of both sides of the issue enjoy a bit of melodramatic self-martyrdom on message boards.

Human nature, I suppose. Human nature also to rationalize it in ourselves, and indict it in others.

[riderinthestorm]

64. Please provide links where atheists have told Cali or anyone else to STFU on this issue?

Or that she's (you?) being whining, "complaining vociferously", or ignorant of history?

As David Plouffe told Candy Crowley, the false equivalency is wearing thin....

[Iggo]

37. But the whining about the whining is top notch!

Let it go.

[Bake]

40. The whining here was to be expected.

We're not happy here unless we're griping about something. Wait, that's the Republicans ... no, it's DU.



Bake

[rainlillie]

62. Good point..LOL! Thank God, for the scroll button on my mouse.

[bvar22]

41. Those whining about those whining about all that Religious crap...

...can also take your wonderful advice.

[Democrats_win]

49. I can't forgive false religion's ties to bush.

They tied their cart to bush, so let's not allow them back to the good graces of America. Make the church's pay taxes! Then, they can participate in our national ceremonies. Never again should false religion darken the halls of America!

[Gman]

50. They need to get TF over it

They're not as smart as they think they are

[frylock]

124. certainly not as smart as you or the OP..

we are truly blessed that you tolerate us.

[AlbertCat]

53. The whining about the whining here about religion being included in the inauguration

...is pitiful.

"No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe."

Just telling us to shut up.

We hit a nerve every time.

[Fumesucker]

59. Patronizing, I knew I was missing a word, dismissive, condescending and patronizing

A trifecta, if you will.

Sorry cali, Nadine still has you beat by a substantial margin, her OP was an ironic near brilliant work of art.

And English isn't even her first language, amazing really.

[rainlillie]

60. Being that the President is a Christian, the ceremony represented his beliefs..

I swear, some people just complain because they like the sound of their own voices. If He were Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, I'd imagine the ceremony would honor those beliefs too. Talk about nitpicking.. I'm just glad he won and we're not talking about President Romney.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. So you would have no problem with the principal of your school, being a christian and everything,

taking the opportunity of every school assembly to share his christian faith with the students. Right?

[rainlillie]

95. Nope.

It's one thing to talk about faith or lack there of, it's another thing to try to convert others to your way of thinking.

[jeff47]

165. How, exactly, are the situations different?

One is a leader talking about how wonderful faith is.
The other is a leader talking about how wonderful faith is.

It's the same thing.

[rainlillie]

172. Yeah and I don't have a problem with either.

[jeff47]

183. Yet the SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that one of those is unconstitutional.

The other, nobody has bothered to sue over.

[Warren Stupidity]

209. Really? The Supreme Court has held otherwise for over 40 years.

[Fearless]

61. It is however sad that this day in age

People continue to hold onto such superstitious nonsense.

[rainlillie]

66. Seriously, who the hell are you to question what others believe..

What may be "nonsenses" to you, is faith to others. I respect your right to not believe without insulting you, I suggest you do the same. Tolerance is a beautiful thing.

[AlbertCat]

72. Tolerance is a beautiful thing.

I know!

The tolerance of atheists expressing their views is staggering here!

[rainlillie]

80. Sure is..

This whole thread is simply amusing, every time I come to this forum, I realize why I stopped coming here in the first place. It's so high school. Live and let live. No one is forcing folks to believe or not believe. Is it really a shocker that religion played a part in the President's inauguration? It reminds me of the lame controversies that the righties create on a daily basis.

[Fearless]

82. You're right

No one is forcing you not to believe, only to accept that others are allowed to vocalize their beliefs in just the same way you are.

[AlbertCat]

175. Is it really a shocker that religion played a part in the President's inauguration?

I think you're confusing "shock" with "disappointment."

[zeemike]

112. And we should tolerate them when they tell people to

STFU about religion...and how if you believe that shit you are a stupid stupid person...
No one should be offended by that....but hearing references to God is offensive...because....well it just is.

[AlbertCat]

179. And we should tolerate them when they tell people to STFU about religion...

Yes. And all the other stuff too. Because being called stupid pales to being called obviously immoral and deserving of eternal (not some but ETERNAL) torment. Especially when denying science.

[zeemike]

202. Well I can see how that is so much worse.

Cause when they condemn you to ETERNAL damnation you believe it is real...and that is why it is so much worse?
Stupid is about hear and now....Hell is a place in the future that you don't believe in.
But should I be offended then if you tell me when you die it is all over and you are never again conscious for ETERNITY?...some people might think that is hell and could rightly claim a butt-hurt....but you have science that PROVES it is so?...would love to see it.

The problem is that these arguments fall apart when closely examined....science has not proved such and such, and your complaints are trivial and petty...what someone else believes and speaks about dose not harm you...what they DO is what harms you.

[AlbertCat]

213. you believe it is real..

Oh please! What I believe obviously doesn't matter.


Besides, kowtowing to some god in the here and now so you don't burn for eternity is different? "Knowing" (and hoping) non believers burn in hell IS in the here and now. The future hasn't happened yet. You can't get out of wishing us harm.

[zeemike]

214. Well I don't wish you any harm.

And you will find many that are not atheist and do not wish you any harm...ether hear or in the future.
And I can say for certain that you will not go to hell and any punishment you will receive will be right here on earth in this life not the next...and the punishment will not be from god but from your fellow men or yourself.
God does not require kowtowing to...men require that to satiate their ego...any divine being is so far above that.

The problem you have is with fundamentalist who are so far away from the teachings of Jesus that you might as well say they were Anti Christ...and you project that on the belief in god as the cause of it....that is simply not true, as sure as the belief in no god is not the cause of crime.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Uh huh.

[Fearless]

79. This thing works both ways

If you feel that I should accept your view that it is a sane rational belief that some people have, then you also need to accept that I view it as an irrational superstition that some people have. Or we just have to agree to disagree.

[rainlillie]

88. You don't have to accept jack! Just be respectful and not insulting to folks

who have a different view. Everyone and their grandma is up in arms on this forum when the right-wing attacks Muslims, as we should be; We should feel that same since of rage when folks from other religions, or folks who are non-religious are insulted.

[Fearless]

97. I am not insulting you any more than you're insulting me.

The fact is I'm not being insulting, even if you're insulted.

[rainlillie]

107. I guess it was the use of the term "superstitious nonsense,"

That was offensive to me.

[Fearless]

108. I assume it was.

Am I not allowed to believe that?

[rainlillie]

111. Go for it!

Whatever tickles your fancy.

[Fearless]

123. Have a good day

[rainlillie]

130. You too.

[AlbertCat]

182. "superstitious nonsense," That was offensive to me.

Your faith must not be very strong. Or in the back of your mind, you know it IS superstitious nonsense and have to work hard to suppress that notion.

[jeff47]

168. Respecting your belief means respecting you wanting me to burn in a lake of fire.

It shouldn't come as much surprise that it is difficult to get respect from people that you hope will be tortured for eternity.

[rainlillie]

170. Merry-go-rounds are nauseating..

I'm more of a; "love thy neighbor" type of gal, then damning folks. But hey that's just me.

[jeff47]

181. You can be whatever you'd like. But the religion you're supporting demands I suffer. (nt)

[rainlillie]

190. Damn! you know more about me than I know about myself..

#1. I believe in God, Allah, Buddha and so much more.
#2. I don't belong to an organize religion.
#3. My best friend who is the God -mother to both my children is an atheist. Yeah, we New Yorkers are crazy like that.

[jeff47]

191. You're still supporting it, whether or not you believe in it. (nt)

[MADem]

212. Wow--you're LUMPING!

Are you seriously suggesting that all faiths hold that tenet, that atheists "burn in a lake of fire?"

I don't think that is true. I'm pretty sure those who practice Shinto don't care much what you do.

And this crew aren't monolithic in their afterlife beliefs, either: http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/beliefs/afterlife.htm

These guys aren't sold on hell, either--they're into recycling: http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Hinduism.html

And if you go to our friend Google and ask "Do christians believe in hell?" you'd be surprised at some of the answers--there's not unanimity there. There are christians who don't buy that "bad afterlife" bit at all.

I think it's probably best to not assume what people think or believe without asking first. That respect thing is a two way street.

[amuse bouche]

121. Yup

It 'so unevolved. Very disappointing

[mfcorey1]

69. Amen!!!

[forestpath]

71. Oh goodie, yet another sanctimonious lecture.

[cleanhippie]

74. Yeah, fuck those people that find religious ceremony at a secular event to be divisive.

If those assholes would only sit down and shut up, right?

[Odin2005]

77. I'm an Atheist and I find the poutrage annoying as Hell.

I don't like civic religion, but it's psychologically important for social cohesiveness and so I deal with it. People need ritual. I am a Westerner, and am thus steeped in Christian imagery and metaphor whether I like it or not.

[RKP5637]

126. I'm pretty much in the same boat, I just let it roll off my back seeing it

more as tradition. It is, as you say, "psychologically important for social cohesiveness and so I deal with it. People need ritual." As on DUer said once to me, maybe it was you, if they didn't have religion then they would probably have extreme nationalism, so take the religion as a better choice ... well, something like that.

[YoungDemCA]

78. I think the divide between the religious and the non-religious is greater than ever in the US...

The number of non-religious is growing, especially among the younger generation. That is a direct threat to the influence and power of the churches.

Some churches are trying to adapt, others are digging in to dogma and fundamentalism. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the latter is more common among a lot of churches.

The religious/non religious divide is, IMO, greater in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party (which has effectively purged even many moderate Christians-let alone the secular).

[Cynicus Emeritus]

105. It seems to always be targeted at those of a Christian culture

Would we hear shxt from shinola if such events involved Hindu, Muslim, Jewish culture etc. We may not consider ourselves as believers in the same or any specific religion, but the religious views of our family background and heritage does represent a huge factor in how we view the world and other aspects of behavior, how justice is applied, etc. Religious heritage culturally hard wires us to an extent and all the bitching in the world about religion is not going to change such human traits of behavior.

[whathehell]

150. Bingo!!.....You won't hear jack shit against Judaism, Islam or anything else here

The hypocrisy is WAY over the top,

because like most societies, unfortunately, DU

has its share of bullies and cowards.

[Bake]

160. BAM! There it is!

You just nailed it. THANK YOU.

While they are busy ridiculing the faith of (mostly) Christians, in such terms as "Imaginary Cloud Being" etc., I can't help but notice that I rarely if ever see a person of faith refer to them as "arrogant, superior bastards."

Bake

[whathehell]

192. You're most welcome, Bake.

and, yes, there IS a dearth of insults like "arrogant, superior bastards" being thrown at them

by people of faith, and I, for one, find that regrettable.

[djean111]

84. There is now more whining about the whining, seems to me.

But - now I can relax, because not caring for the religious trappery has now been labeled as Obama-bashing or hating or whatever, and the circle is complete!

[quinnox]

85. lol

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

91. It's like we've entered into some sort of whining paradox that could fracture the

space time continuum.

[Egalitarian Thug]

89. This OP, the dismissive tone, lack of accuracy, and piling on of the replies

is an example of exactly why religiosity in government is a problem. Once again, DU unintentionally serves up one of the glaring defects in our society while trying to defend them.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. It's dissapointing I guess, but he is a Christian, so this is in keeping with his publicly claimed

values.

I suppose there might be some disappointment on the part of those that thought maybe he was secretly an Atheist or something. I take him at face value, so I am only disappointed to see a politician, in a formal political ceremony, regarding him assuming public office, including religious overtones as part and parcel to the ceremony. It might not violate the 1st amendment directly, but it seems to be against the spirit of at least, how the court has applied the 1st in these matters, via Lemon vs. Kurtzman.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

93. 5, 4, 3, 2......

[cali]

99. and you little pumpkin are soon to be booted out of here on your moronic

ass. why is it you trolls are so fucking stupid?

[YankeyMCC]

94. as an atheist i found

nothing offensive or excessively exclusionary.

i think it would be more fitting to affirm or swear on the constitution however there was to much to be happy for than to say anything at the moment.


however, i also know the pain of rejection and community condemnation due to being atheist i sympathize with those who did speak up. and opening a conversation about that with a generalization and insult is not going to get us very far along the path of shared community mr obama talked about so elegantly yesterday.

[longship]

96. But the religiosity is superfluous.

It is added on for the majority of our nation who are religious. I do not disagree that it has become tradition to wrap the inauguration of our presidents in religious garb, so to speak.

But what many of us see, and what maybe you do not see, is that the only necessity in doing this is to make people comfortable that they have elected yet another president who worships a god. That fact alone highlights to many in this country that they are the other, outsiders who will never be allowed to be part of the process. It is what Madison and Jefferson would label the tyranny of the majority.

As an atheist, I do not care whether my president is religious or not. I don't care whether he or she goes to church or what church. My president can pray to Yahweh, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Buddhist floaty thing. It just doesn't bother me one bit whatever.

But all the prayers at the inaugural does bother me because a president should not use the office to display his religiosity to the world. His power comes not from god, but from our Constitution, which never once mentions god and specifically prohibits religious tests for office.

Now I admit that the prayers are probably not unconstitutional by today's standards. But to many people, they are a blatant demonstration that our government considers us outsiders. At least, four years ago, President Obama recognized us in his speech. I will take him at his word that we are still included in his thoughts. But I remain very uncomfortable with all the prayers in government, especially by the GOP, who take it to what I consider dangerous levels.

That latter issue is why some of us bring this topic up.

Please, if you want to discuss things rationally, it is best not to call names. That tactic is sophomoric and never goes anywhere good.

Thanks.

[99Forever]

98. One person's "whining"..

.. is another's exercising of their Constitutional Right to Free Speech to state their opinion.

I know which of those two I'd prefer to be a member of society with.

[cthulu2016]

102. Cali, you need to rethink what separation means

If you think that nothing yesterday violated it, you are mistaken, but many share your view because they insert an invisible "one" in the phrase "establishment of (one) religion."

The state should have nothing to do with religion. Like, nothing.

Was there a satanist invocation? Was there an invocation from some guy telling everyone that only a particularly stupid child could believe in God? Was there some guy with a unique personal cosmology where the universe is made of Legos?

No, there were not.

Those views were excluded. Their exclusion should not be controversial, but it IS controversial because other views were included. There is no reason for any state function to include or exclude any religion. It is supposed to exclude all religion... not to say anything negative about religion by excluding it, but because it is supposed to be a separate sphere.

The inclusion of good non-sectarian religion is an endorsement of good non-sectarian religion.

And invoking tradition (not saying you are or aren't) is deeply cynical from people (not necessarily you) who want to cop an attitude about how "reasonable" they are in embracing traditional counter-constitutionalism by citing the fact that we have had this stuff for a long time without it being unconstitutional... as if that means anything (!)

It was illegal in many places for blacks and whites to marry even a century after the 14th Amendment. And if anyone cares to argue that the fact that the 14th Amendment wasn't taken seriously in cultural practice is evidence that the 14th Amendment did not mean that black Americans were equal for all legal purposes then they are free to make that argument.

But we know what both you and I would think of that argument.

And re: "No one is forcing anyone else to pray or believe." That's is a real straw man. The establishment clause does not require formal coercion. If the government started running ads for Walmart at government expense they would not be forcing anyone to shop at Walmart, nor forbidding anyone to shop at K-mart.

[Luminous Animal]

196. +1 Great post.

I'm glad I read through this thread because I was going to post something similar.

[jcamp27]

109. I'm not going to call anyone a whiner

you are free to express your opinion about religion and have feelings as you see fit. I would point out that there is already a political party in this country that will tolerate no variation on ideology, and demands all its elected officials toe the party line unequivocally. I'm proud that I don't belong to that party and I appreciate the diversity of thought and belief of my chosen party.

[rainlillie]

119. Cali, You've made some good points

I must have missed something along the way, because the President talked about his "faith" quite often. As I recall he talked about it during the convention in the summer. If I had an issue with it, I probably wouldn't have voted for him. It's not like the cat was let out of the bag yesterday.. Also it's not like Carter or Clinton didn't use religion during their inauguration speeches.

[frylock]

120. May Odin Bless and Keep you

[amuse bouche]

127. or one of the other

2,999 Gods. Gotta cover all bases

[Progressive dog]

128. It did violate separation of church and state

But it was minimal and not worth arguing over. Madison felt that military chaplains and Congressional chaplains were unconstitutional, but did nothing to stop them. Whether the President is religious or not does not matter to me. His policy positions and actions do, and I don't care if they are based on his beliefs or not.

[mike_c]

129. nonetheless, when the praying starts, I stop paying attention....

I have no interest in anyone else's religious delusions, no matter how common or widespread they might be.

[ecstatic]

131. Certain OPs were disingenuous, IMO

I can understand genuine posts expressing annoyance with regard to the traditional/religious aspects of inauguration. I'm a Christian, but even I don't like to sit through long, boring sermons (thank God for fast forward, the mute button, and 500 channels). But the tone of certain OPs yesterday was hostile to the point of being in troll territory. As many people pointed out, the format of these ceremonies has been pretty consistent for decades, so to act surprised, shocked, and outraged in a manner that disrupts the community is a little suspect, IMO.

[bluestateguy]

137. The overwhelmng majority of Americans believe in God

And that is apparently a very hard pill for some people to swallow.

[cthulu2016]

144. I refute your majoritarian argument Thus...

[99Forever]

166. I suggest that...

.. you spend a little time researching tyrannide maioritas.

[AlbertCat]

185. The overwhelmng majority of Americans believe in God

That's their problem.

[judesedit]

153. 99% of the members of Congress also swear in on a Bible. Obama is also a Christian so uses the Bible

That does not interfere with their governing. As you can see the GOP is no more righteous for doing so. They are still screwing us at every turn. Did you catch their move in Virginia yesterday while on of the Dem legislaturers was at the inauguration? Check it out. They are less than cow fodder in my book. Jesus is ashamed of them and probably half the Dems anyway. Get a grip. No matter what Obama does the republicants find fault with.

Don't worry. We love you, Obama, and are so thankful for all you've managed to accomplish while trying to work with this "do-nothing" Congress. You're the best. I hope your faith gives you the strength you'll need for the next 4 years.

[DinahMoeHum]

156. Nit-picky navel-gazing. . .

. . .what a fucking waste of time.

[stupidicus]

157. why do all of these kind of whines always include

charges that no effort is made to show that others made the charge charged?

Who said it was a violation of the separation of C&S?

What I'd like to know is, why is it seemingly necessary just to make crap up when indicting those indicted? I see this all the time where critiques of BHO are involved, and it implies worse things about those doing it than the phony charges do those they are directed at.

I'd bet every single person that offered a criticism or wish that it wasn't included to the extent that it was, knows full well there was no such violation present. I'd also bet you can't show otherwise.

[trishtrash]

159. I am confused and sad ...

I am pretty new here but have been an onlooker for a very long time. This is not the DU I thought I was signing up for. I do not call myself a Christian but there was not one minute of this beautiful ceremony that offended me. Why aren't we talking about the issues that concern everyone who participates on this website, the issues that the president spoke about in his very eloquent and progressive speech, and how the changes we all want can best be brought about?

[djean111]

174. We are, in other threads.

[trishtrash]

205. Of course, I know that. (A little patronizing by the way.)

It's just disconcerting and frankly surprising to see the level of vitriol in some of these posts. The inauguration is a ritual in which the incoming president can choose to have a blessing or benediction, the music of his choice etc. And as has been pointed out, our founders evoked God or a heavenly power not just in word but in our great founding documents. Imagine the uproar had all mention of God been purged from the proceedings. Good lord!!

[djean111]

208. Sorry - I thought it was a little disingenuous to ask why we couldn't talk about nice things ;-)

Because there are lots of threads about lots of things, today!
Looks, really, like there are more threads whining about the "whiners" - which is what anyone who dares criticize anything remotely related to Obama is called. And then I believe RW paid troll and Obama-hater are next in line.
Vitriol? Don't see much of that.
But lots of condescension, for sure, both sides.

For myself, I just didn't watch, started zero threads, never occurred to me, but I do tend to stick up for atheism, here and there.
Don't mind hymns, like some of them, but religious droning isn't my thing. And frankly don't care about the religious feelings of our founders.
Not interested enough for vitriol, however.
I cared deeply about the election; the rest is just stuff. Not into ritual, either. For sure, yesterday's ritual wasn't meant for me - I know that!

[trishtrash]

211. I get your points and honor your beliefs.

And, I have been and will continue to be a whiner when Obama falls short of what he could be or what he has promised. I do think that ritual plays an important part in our world both private and public. And I have to confess that the event yesterday touched me to my core. Then my husband and I went to see "Lincoln" yesterday and I was crying red white and blue.

[malaise]

173. Agreed n/t

[JNelson6563]

188. No one is forced to pray or believe

But if you don't you're definitely on the outside looking in. As it should be according to some.

Julie

[progressoid]

216. +1

[Raine]

194. Totally agree. nt

[Laochtine]

203. Thank you for the buckets of blood

Your beliefs don't mean as much when the bastards win,
love each other long enough to tear each other apart.
That is all

[DirkGently]

207. This call out OP is a whine. Lame and entitled.