Just a thought ... let's have NO invocation. Let ALL the preachers stay home.

[eppur_se_muova]

What's happening on 20 Jan 2009 is a change of civil government in a nation which recognizes no establishment of religion. It does not need, and does not benefit from, a clerical presence.

After having wingnut "religion" shoved in our faces for the last eight years, it would be quite a relief to see one event of importance that didn't feature some alleged "man of God" granted a highly public pulpit to spout his narrow interpretation of The Truth. I object to the plans for the invocation on these general principles, regardless of who nominated whom for the honor.

OK, all free to pile on now.

[marylanddem]

1. Heartily concur - a great idea.

[Owl]

42. I also agree.

[SoCalNative]

2. No argument here

I wish they'd remove every last reference to religion from any ceremony or proceeding..

including taking that bible out of courtrooms.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. I actually agree with you.

I'll save that invitation to pile on for another day :)

[Tangerine LaBamba]

4. If Obama's a Muslim,

where's that fatass Warren coming from?

They should just skip the god bullshit. Hasn't anyone yet figured out that organized religion does nothing except fuck things up?

[katanalori]

5. I agree too -

Separation of Church and State - it is TIME.

[Delphinus]

6. No piling from me -

I think it's a wonderful idea.

[chocolate ink]

7. Invocation

I couldn't agree more. I know it seems to much to ask to actually get prayer out of government but couldn't they(the committee-whoever)at least found someone of a nondenominational bent? Or if they have to have 'prayer' why not a Native American speaker giving a blessing..speaking as an agnostic I don't necessarily think a 'blessing' has to be religious.

The only good thing out of this Warren controversy is that it keeps the spotlight on prop. 8 to a certain extent I think..which is good.

[City Lights]

8. I totally agree.

:thumbsup:

[mopinko]

9. works for me.

boy does that ever work for me. i am not getting the outrage over this because i tuned these assholes out a long time ago.

[soulcore]

10. Here here!

Freedom of Religion?

How about Freedom FROM Religion!?

PS - Obama just said 'fuck you' to gays, lesbians, and oh yeah .. women. Warren wants your right to choose ladies. How's THAT for 'bridging divides'?

[KT2000]

11. Excellent idea!

There is no need for an invocation from anyone.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. Disenfranchise a hearty piece of our fellow citizens. You think that's a unifying move, huh.

Have you no respect for human beings' need to find strength, wherever possible, to not only survive but also contribute to the life they have?

I have an idea: all those who simply can NOT conjure some sense of tolerance should be prohibited from oppressing the rest of us who seek to hold out a hand to those who may differ in many ways but are still human beings.

[SidDithers]

15. How are citizens disenfranchised...

by having a secular government perform a secular ceremony?

Sid

[Runcible Spoon]

16. No shit! When's the last time a Buddhist did the invocation?

OH MY GOD CHRISTIANS ARE SO POWERLESS AND MARGINALIZED IN AMERICA! :cry:

[progressoid]

17. Disenfranchised?

Snubbed maybe, but not disenfranchised.

So can we assume you're OK with "disenfranchising" some other hearty pieces of our fellow citizens with the choice of Warren (gays, pro-choicers, non-believers, Muslims, Hindus, etc.)? How unifying is it to give a hearty fuck you to us?

[LeftyMom]

25. Religious people aren't disenfranchised by a prayer-free inagural.

They can pray at home, or in their churches, or while hanging upside down from the branch of a tree, for all I care.

But a government function is supposed to represent all of us, and many people pray differently or don't pray at all, so the delivery of a prayer is inherently exclusionary, while omitting one is not.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. Allow me to explain:

Not acceding to the demands of believers to force religion upon you at every turn and have a sanctified place at the focal point of every social gathering is persecution. They have the right and duty to chirp and drone at every turn, and one MUST accept that belief is the unquestioned norm.

Not granting them their just dominance is an act of oppression.

Mr. Obama has brought more religion into politics than any other serious presidential candidate in my lifetime; it will be interesting to see if this persists or if it was just a tactic of the moment. Sadly, it doesn't really matter: religion is now NECESSARY and compulsory at the presidential level; while there used to be a somewhat secular party among the two, there really isn't anymore.

Shut the fuck up, kneel and kiss the signet ring, and PLEASE stop persecuting those who demand that you toe the line, you ingrate.

[Laelth]

33. Oh, I got it.

You mean like that? ;)

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--bb code error.

[eppur_se_muova]

62. LOL! I *had* to save a copy of that gif! nt

[Laelth]

32. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

Disenfranchise? Who's talking about taking away someone's right to vote?

:shrug:

-Laelth

[Ignis]

36. Separation of Church & State trumpsTolerance.

Would you be so "tolerant" of a KKK Grand Wizard performing the invocation?

I find no reason to be tolerant of the intolerant. As they sow....

[Synicus Maximus]

49. You do realize where the separation of church and state

comes from don't you. It is simply in a letter to the Danbury Baptist basically stating that the government would not establish a state religion.

[Ignis]

50. Ooh, a historical context troll! That's a new one.

Enjoy your stay.

[eppur_se_muova]

63. Try the First Amendment to the Constitution ...

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

-- The First Amendment

The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state. Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that "the devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."

Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. Free from government control -- and without government assistance -- religious values, literature, traditions and holidays permeate the lives of our citizens and, in their diverse ways, form an integral part of our national culture. By maintaining the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued vitality of religion in American life.

from http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp

[fascisthunter]

39. Disenfranchise???? You are aware Our Government is Supposed to be Secular

and you also should realize why.

If you consider that to be oppressive, you are a religious nut.

[ColbertWatcher]

40. If I extend my hand to Christers and other religiots ...

... it will be to give them a copy of the Constitution.

[mondo joe]

43. How do no invocation disenfranchise anyone?

[Bill McBlueState]

53. Who's losing his or her right to vote?

That's what "disenfranchise" means. If you're just looking for a fancy way to say "snub," then how about "ostracize?"

[14thColony]

13. I agree

Nor does the president need to place his hand on any book at all. Not required. If he feels compelled, I suggest a book of US law, as used by John Quincy Adams. Or even better place his hand on a copy of the Constitution.

[SidDithers]

14. Great post...nt

Sid

[netania99]

18. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[elehhhhna]

19. ding ding ding! YOU WIN!!!1!! Super idea.

[elehhhhna]

20. Failing that, let's have an extremist preacher/rabbi/iman etc. from every major denomination there.

Yanno, for balance.

[Lance_Boyle]

57. Dear gawds.

I first read that as "Yanni, for balance."



I'll take Rick Warren and a plague of boils instead, please.

[smokey nj]

21. The only reason I'm piling on is to give you a big

:hug:
I love that idea!

[frebrd]

22. Hear! Hear! Thank You! n/t

[JustAnotherGen]

23. Ahhhhhhhhh - men

[roody]

24. Fuck the invocation. It is an insult to our intelligence.

I was raised to value the separation of church and state (raised a Baptist---they have since changed their minds.)

[DavidDvorkin]

26. Hear, hear!

I'd also like to the incoming President sworn in on the Constitution, and not adding the phrase "so help me, God" to the oath prescribed by the Constitution.

[mike_c]

28. absolutely!-- it's time to move beyond ignorant superstition...

...and stop pandering to it in public affairs.

[PVnRT]

29. Agreed 100%

[kath]

30. Get rid of the benediction, too. TWO fuckin' prayers in one CIVIL ceremony of a SECULAR government??

What. The. Fuck.

[Laelth]

31. Hear, hear! I fully agree.

:dem:

-Laelth

[librechik]

34. Hell yes

damn! A firestorm over some preacher? What century is this again?

Separation of church and state NOT OPERATIVE at certain times?

feh

[MadrasT]

35. I'm all for that.

Heartily K&R'd

:kick:

[robinlynne]

37. THANK-YOU!!!!! Leave God out of it. I approve.

[tbyg52]

38. Absolutely agree. nt

[Odin2005]

41. As an Atheist I can only wish that could happen.

This is part of the reason I am not pissed about the whole Warren thing. Many DUers attacking Warren's bigotry are bigoted themselves and want us Atheists to go to the back of the bus.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Anyone?

[Pastiche423]

44. I found this too late to recommend

But I so recommend your post!

[alarimer]

45. Can you imagine the hissy fit thrown by the christofascists though?

It would be a lovely thing to behold, that some President has the nerve to tell those freaks to shove it.

[Blue_Tires]

46. of course this is the BEST idea, but its notgonnahappen.com

[mascarax]

47. Agree

There's no need for an invocation (other than give Hannity something to yap about, not that I care).

[santamargarita]

48. What the hell do need that for anyway? I rather spend 3 minutes chanting...

...Bush, get the fuck out!

[opihimoimoi]

51. I agree,,,,there should be NO whatever they call it when a Shaman shakes beads and babbles crap

[earth mom]

52. The U.S. was founded on the separation of Church & State. I don't see how having ANY preacher

is legal. :grr:

[4 t 4]

55. That is a great idea I agree 100%

everyone should have the right to keep their faith as private as what they do in their bedroom. I for one don't care or really want to know what anyones faith is. We should give that respect to all, I think it is a very private matter when it is genuine.

[Ezlivin]

54. Jesus will still show up

Apparently he simply can't stay away whenever there's more than two people.

[Duer 157099]

56. A-fricken-men! n/t

[Mad_Dem_X]

58. That's a good idea. n/t

[krabigirl]

59. I wholeheartedly agree!

[surrealAmerican]

60. Best idea all week.

A deity didn't make him president, we did! Of course, politicians are way too superstitious to make this change.

[rucky]

61. Would an "amen" be appropriate?