Thursday, December 18, 2008

The wrong fight over Warren

I was wondering earlier when they started having invocations at all at the inaugurations. I still don't know who did it first, or why, being too lazy to research it, but Steve Benen provides one answer from an email commenter.
* This is the wrong fight: The real problem isn't with who will give the invocation, but rather, the fact that there's going to be an invocation in the first place. We had 144 years of presidential inaugurations, dating back to George Washington, in which there was no invocation and no benediction. This shouldn't be a fight over which pastor delivers the prayer; this should be a fight over the official prayer itself.
The more I mull it over, the more I agree but it's not a fight we could win in time for it to make a difference for this inauguration. However, the increasing encroachment of religion into government functions is a fight worth having over the long run before we forget that freedom of religion very much was meant to also be freedom from religion, by our Founders.

[More posts daily at The Newshoggers and The Detroit News.]

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

Anyone who has read Jefferson or Madison agrees that freedom from religion was a cornerstone of our country and is a cornerstone of any kind of freedom.

That's why it's become a slogan to say that freedom from religion is not guaranteed and that's why we have Malkin and Carlson and Fox insisting that everyone must celebrate Christmas and recite the proper words whether they like it or not and must tolerate paying taxes for placing plastic Jesi anywhere they like.

That's why Christmas has gone from my favorite day of the year to a holiday of hate and a celebration of tyranny.

11:03:00 AM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

They have taken all the fun out of it, haven't they?

2:57:00 PM  
Blogger rockync said...

Personally, I think the whole Rick Warren thing is "much ado about nothing." Basically, most people will hear blah, blah, blah and he'll hold the bible and say a few more blah, blah, blahs and all anyone will be talking about the next day is Michelle's dress! I think I'll save my outrage for the really important stuff.

11:20:00 PM  
Blogger Capt. Fogg said...

Perhaps the idea is to use someone so retro-Christian that the inevitable speculation of "wasn't that really a Koran?" won't arise.

9:36:00 AM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Rocky, as far as its importance as an act, it surely isn't. The symbolism is troubling and really my outrage is that they're incorporating Christian religion into government process too much overall. The effect won't be so longlasting surely from the invocation itself, except it will give that idiot Warren some long term cred as "America's pastor." And increase his profitability on selling books and whatnot. That's irritating.

Fogg, I suspect you're right that a lot of this has to do with breaking down the meme of Muslim marxist that just won't die in that crowd.

1:30:00 PM  
Blogger rockync said...

I agree with most everything commented here and I too find all the neochristian heavy handedness we've had to put up with especially the past eight years pretty disturbing.
But, I see the tide turning which is how Obama got elected in the first place. An irritant, maybe, but not enough to go into battle.
I think there will be far more important issues to decry later on.

12:08:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home