About these “Invocations!”

Yeehaw!!!!!!!

I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wanna see Thomas choke up.

Should I believe him?

When Obama said the words, “…and non-believers” the way he did…I thought I would jump out of my skin. What a wonderful inclusion! How very, very rare! And to do it with as much force and tempo as he did…was an especially inclusive move.

There were some great comments here…I thank you all. I just had to vet my frustration with having been so wrong. (I hate when the mistake I’m going to make happens as early as January. I have to be so damned careful all the rest of the year.)

Rosborne’s comment does a great job of putting things in perspective.



I guess another thing working on me is: If our leaders are all silly enough to embrace the superstition, why should I feel comfortable with them at the wheel?

As you've pointed out yourself, politicians may very well cynically invoking religion for its appeal to the electorate, in which case you don't necessarily need to fear that they are motivated by superstition in their formulation of policy and in making decisions. Even were someone genuinely religious--superstitious, if you prefer, as would i--that is not evidence that they make decisions or formulate policy on an unsound basis.

Finally, these are not "leaders" in the classic sense. They do not lead because it is so ordained, or because they have a great leadership potential which they are able freely to exercise. They lead because the electorate has decided they have the potential, and has chosen them. The electorate can also dispense with them. Certainly, the example of Baby Bush doesn't give one a great deal of confidence in the electorate, but even bad mistakes like that can't last more than eight years.

Yeah, I guess you're right.

Well, history told us that:

Francis, agent provocateur éternel . . .

I really don't think Frank Apisa realizes why President Obama used the phrase-"non-believers". Obama is, as the President of the Harvard Law Review and a person who is off the charts in intelligence as well as extremely well read, aware that in REALITY, American church going is eroding extremely quickly. All religious groups are reporting greatly decreased attendance to religious services.

President Obama used the phrase"...and non believers" because he is for inclusion but also because he knows that most Americans, when truth be told are "non-believers".

President Obama need not fear the Robertsons and Grahams of the religious right. They have no power anymore.

I'm not sure about that. I know a lot of people call themselves religious even though they don't go to church, but I think the majority of people still consider themselves "believers" in one religion or another.

rosborne, if they're all such believers then why have they done away with prayers in public schools? Wasn't it in good faith towards non-religious groups
and/or different religions? Why not implement the same in other public entities such as the presidency?

I know, we have tried for centuries to keep politics and religion separate in
Europe and it wasn't always successful - either the union or separation, and
the United States is relatively young, but I want to believe that in time, the
religious aspect takes a backseat in american politics, foremost in pro choice
questions and educating the young.

That's a red herring. "They" didn't do away with prayer in public schools. Two Supreme Court cases did that. The first was was actually the resolution of three cases (including Murray v. Curlett, upon which basis the foaming at the mouth bible thumpers blamed Madalyn Murry O'Hare for ending prayer in public schools) in 1962 and 1963. The Court prohibited prayer in public schools in the resolution of those cases. In 1971, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court established "the Lemon test," which held that any practice in state-run or -subsidized schools must have a secular purpose, must not either advance nor inhibit religion (the first clause of the first amendment prohibits the establishment of religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion), and must not result in "excessive entanglement" of government and religion.

It has nothing to do with a body of people reputedly either believers or non-believers.

This is the relevant portion of the Firs Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

So, you cannot require a President to swear to god upon his or her inauguration, and you can't prevent him or her from swearing to god. This is all that the Constitution requires when swearing in a President Elect:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Anything else, including " . . . so help me God," is just window dressing, and is the personal and legal right of the individual.

All vocal ceremonies constitute "word magic". Prayers are merely a sub-variety.

Well,if you are correct, then there is a problem with President Obama's "inclusiveness". If the non-believers attempt, as they have done in the past to try to exclude the celebration of CHRISTmas, they would be showing that they are NOT inclusive. I am certain that President Obama would not approve of such attempts to exclude believers.

Genoves wrote:



Where on earth have the non-believers attempted to exclude the celebration of Christmas???

What the hell are you talking about?

Seriously, Genoves...what are you talking about?

I believe that the 'they' CalamityJane used was a general 'they', the kind that native speakers of the language frequently use. It means "some unidentifiable person or people".

Dear Mr. Apisa:

Please note:

Christmas controversy refers to controversy or disagreement surrounding the celebration or acknowledgement of the Christmas holiday in government, media, advertising and various secular environments. Modern-day controversy occurs mainly in the United States,[1][2] Canada,[3][4][5] and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom,[6][7] and usually stems from the holiday's significant annual role in Western economy in conjunction with its Christian significance in an increasingly religiously diversifying Western society. The term "War on Christmas" is sometimes used to address recent controversy.

In recent decades, during the annual approach to December 25, it is widely alleged[citation needed] that public, corporate, and government mention of the term "Christmas" is avoided and replaced with a generic term"usually "holiday" or "winter""and that popular non-religious aspects of Christmas, such as secular Christmas carols and decorated trees are still prominently showcased and recognized, but are vaguely associated with non-specified "holidays", rather than with Christmas.[8]

Supporters of using the word "holidays" instead of "Christmas" cite the fact that many of the symbols western societies have come to associate with Christmas were taken from non-Christian pagan traditions that pre-date the birth of Jesus. Specifically, symbols such as decorated trees, mistletoe, holly wreaths and yule logs all have non-Christian origins.[9][10] From a historical context, "Christmas" only recently adopted these long-standing winter traditions into its own identity. Therefore, many non-Christians argue that the most accurate description of this season is the "holiday" season, not the "Christmas" season (a label which only describes the religious celebration of Christ's birth).

In the past, Christmas-related controversy was mainly restricted to concerns of a public focus on secular Christmas themes such as Santa Claus and gift giving rather than what is sometimes expressed by Christians as the "reason for the season""the birth of Jesus. The term "Xmas", the subject of controversy during the mid-to-late 20th century, originated from the use of the Greek letter chi, Χ, as an abbreviation of Christ (Χρισ

Interesting piece, genoves. Thank you for it. And please call me Frank.



Now back to the question I asked which you didn’t get to:

“Where on earth have the non-believers attempted to exclude the celebration of Christmas???”

Yay, another Christ in Christmas thread! Somewhat alert David!

I don't much care what they do with the inauguration, since I neither participate nor watch. If I was there, though, I'd have the same sort of discomfort that I do when I'm dining with a religious wing of the extended family and grace is said before the meal. If I'm lucky, it's an expression of gratitude for being able to come together in health and tuck into some grub that a lot of people in the world can't get. With the nuttier elements,* though, there's usually some foray into the "guide us/forgive us/save us" routine.

I find it a little dismaying that this same sort of pandering to a particular religious tradition must still be a part of our public ceremony, but it's not at all surprising unless you live under a rock or in a constant cloud of denial. It's like being surprised every time one finds out that politicians have been lying and swindling or that the bright yellow disk has appeared over the eastern horizon AGAIN.


*Don't worry, the nuttier elements don't think much of me, either.

Who do you think is objecting to the use of the word Christmas? Buddists?