>The entire ceremony was sandwiched between an "invocation" and a< >"benediction".<
You know I love a good sandwich! lol It's true that necessity was not a factor in the ceremony. Religious undertone is a wedge that is driven by those in power who have the ability to abuse that power. Constitutional or not the oath is taken with hand on "bible", separation of church and state simply remains a term of convenience to be used when the occasion arises. Obama is a politician and a smart one, he stirred up the melting pot of the country, and if I remember (though trying very hard to forget) Barrack also had a pre-inaugural invocation by some bishop. You are right that the whole of it is contradictory to constitutional law. However, my point was simply that I don't really see much fallout from it as it is not something that just sprung up this year. What you are riled up about has been going on for years. Aside from my disdain for politics I do see a serious danger of pervasive religious groups having influence in political policy. If left unchecked it could lead to our doom just based on some moronic fundamentalist trying to fulfill some apocalyptic prophecy. Is our rotting environment somehow connected to the government ignoring ecological issues due to prophetic end times influence? Having to endure the election process every four years, for me, is as bad as having to endure the xmas holiday season. I can only be glad that it is all over and I can resume living my peaceful life, which has not change much on the account of politics. I actually have no need for the whole shebang and don't want to have anything to do with it. On Jan 24, 6:15 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 24, 12:35 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The invocation was not a religious imposition on the peoples > > government and has not influence whatsoever on governmental function. > > Your outlook is skewed. > > The entire ceremony was sandwiched between an "invocation" and a > "benediction". Neither of these parts of the ceremony were part of the > original design of the inauguration; neither should be seen as > necessary for the inauguration of a president. And yet their very > existed is ipso facto seen as a necessary appeal to the most base > mystical nonsense, excluding all other religions in the supposed > "united" states, and is fundamentally unconstitutional by any rational > analysis. > > > > > If anything GW's stance on certain issues was a violation of the > > separation of church and state, which I had presented many a post to > > demonstrate my position, which stands against it. > > You are missing the point. I am not attacking you or your views, but > the mentality of this hideous ceremony. > > > > > I'm not a stranger to your anti american posts and in fact I find most > > of your output an exercise in negativity, which is probably a > > reflection of the negativity that surrounds your persona. > > Once again you are far off the mark as per usual. I consider myself a > true patriot, and see the constitution of the USA in the way it was > originally conceived by my fellow atheists. I will not excuse or > suffer fools gladly and will offer tough criticism exactly where it is > due, excusing nothing that brings the US political system into > disrepute. > > > > > Now you are thinking, look who is judging, but the fact is your posts > > easily reveal that which is readily apparent. I'm just identifying > > that which already exists. > > Duh! > > > > > On Jan 23, 5:58 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 23, 9:45 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It may have been immensely preferable for you, gruff, but a non > > > > religious ceremony would have sent a stark message which essentially > > > > would have been the wrong message. > > > > Perhaps you had not read the foregoing statements. Often it is > > > painfully necessary to remind Americans of their own constitution > > > which is supposed to guarantee a strict separation of church and > > > state. > > > > The ceremony was just another in a > > > > > long line of presidential ceremonies. The right thing to do in this > > > > climate of chaos is not to throw a wrench into the workings but to > > > > give people the sense that things are relatively calm. Radical > > > > changes may take place in the future but to use a inaugural ceremony > > > > to make a statement seems to me, bad timing. That segment of the > > > > ceremony was so insignificant and probably forgotten 10 minutes later > > > > by the majority of people. It is no longer a news tidbit in the least > > > > sense and I think it's a dead issue. I started a thread awhile back > > > > about the Warren pick for invocation in which chaz responded with: "I > > > > agree and I would not give it a single thought. Personally I doubt > > > > that a man of his intelligence give much thought to god except as a > > > > vehicle for political credibility. I would not be surprised if he is > > > > an atheist." Therefore I would agree with chaz that the choice is not > > > > indicative of Obama's personal views but more so, as politicians go, > > > > indicative of his ability to perform as a top notch politician, none > > > > of which I personally have any use for. Plus I say that Obama must, > > > > in every sense of the word, apply serious discernment in every > > > > decision, as it is at this point in history always going to be a > > > > critical decision. People respond from their own personal stance. > > > > First there were the squawking gay proponents and now it's the > > > > squawking atheists. In this type of political arena there will always > > > > be some group that will squawk, no matter what the decisions are. As > > > > it has been said "you can please some of the people some of the time > > > > but you can't please all of the people all of the time". I hope you > > > > are pleased with my post, at least some of it, lol. > > > > Would that you were not Squawking quite so much, otherwise fine. > > > > > On Jan 23, 2:10 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "... On Jan 23, 10:53 am, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: ..." > > > > > > > Apparently the particular choice of the "invocator" was > > > > > > controversial, > > > > > > him being some kind of born-again type. With 20,000 Christian sects > > > > > > across the world, as well as other religions, any choice must > > > > > > alienate > > > > > > the majority in some way.This make my point well that to have had a > > > > > > non religious ceremony would have been preferable. > > > > > > Without doubt a non-religious ceremony would have been immensely > > > > > preferable but Obama was reaching out to that mass of religious > > > > > ideologues who supported Bush -- there were quite a few of them. I > > > > > recall one of my favorite headlines in 2004 which came from a Kingdom > > > > > newsrag -- The Daily Mirror -- on November 2, 2004: "How can > > > > > 59,084,087 people be so stupid?" > > > > > > I'm hoping November 4, 2008, elicited a much better headline. > > > > > > /e --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
