The Option to Pray is Sacred

Mr. Hirschfield
The answer is very simple. The US Constitution requires the government to remain neutral in matters of religion so as not to favor one religion over another. It's a concept called equality that you seem to fail to comprehend.
As for you stale, stupid arguments of...
"Not to mention the irony of the same people who have bravely argued that people should not be asked to check their sexual, gender or ethnic, identities at the door of public life, now arguing that when it comes to faith, they should."... sexual, gender, and ethnic identities are traits that people are born with and have no control over, that is why we have laws protecting people from discrimination. If you choose to believe that people should live as though it is 2009 B.C., you do have the right to believe that. You do not have the right to force the government to impose these beliefs on the rest of society.
If you do decide that you would rather live in a country that is run as prehistoric theocracy instead of a secular constitutional democracy such as out, I would suggest you move to Israel. I hear they have it down real nicely aside from the constant religious wars with their neighbors. But then again, that's what it was like in 2000 B.C. when they wrote the laws that you seem so eager to want to live by.

"The in-your-face hypocrisy of the religious right marches on. Only now, it has the approval of the one person that millions of Americans voted for in the belief that he would change America and make it a more tolerant land."

It's... exceedingly galling to me that the Religious Right couldn't offer a *single* non-homophobe for the 'inclusion' of their religious point of view.

Obama *did,* however, promise to listen to us *all,* including those, apparently, under the sway of bigots like Warren.

But, it's not Obama who could shame the nation by inviting Warren. It's all about whether or not *Warren* can find it in his heart and head to honor the nation and seek the blessings of his God *without* making it about excluding or dehumanizing others.

It's on *him* to rise to the occasion.

If he fails in this, there's no one to blame but himself.

He claims to know what to do with 'power,' ...Let's see.

I find it hard to disagree with Rabbi Hirschfield's reasoned and balanced comments. I would just note this: Suppose Mitt Romney had been elected President. Suppose he chose a Mormon to give an explicitly Mormon-oriented invocation at his inauguration. Suppose the Mormon delivered the prayer in the name of the Angel Moroni. How comfortable would most other Christians be with that? How tolerant? Would Rev. Warren and his congregation not only not take offense, but line up behind President Romney's right to choose whatever Mormon he wanted to give the invocation and the right of that Mormon to pray whatever way Mormon's pray?

I somehow doubt it.

Furthermore, Jesus explicitly condemns praying in public. Jesus, therefore, explicitly condemns prayers at presidential inaugurations. Jesus was much more explicit about condemning public prayer than he was about homosexuality. In fact, he said nothing about the latter, but he spoke very clearly about the former, with these words:

Matthew 6:5 - "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward."

Matthew 6:6 - "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

How amazing that Rick Warren is willing to violate Jesus' explicit injunction against public prayer and override Jesus with his own interpretation of what is justified, while insisting that some words in the Bible absolutely require him to condemn homosexuality.

The in-your-face hypocrisy of the religious right marches on. Only now, it has the approval of the one person that millions of Americans voted for in the belief that he would change America and make it a more tolerant land.

It's still deceptive to claim there are 'secularist fundamentalists.' That's a false equivalence. That implies secularism is a 'rival relligion' and that therefore religious neutrality in government is really, somehow, actually expression of that rival religion, and not neutrality at all.

Everyone *can* win if government stays out of it. People are already confused enough about this issue as it is without adding more religion to the oath of office.

You put it well.

I believe that the founding fathers were divinely inspired considering the seperation of church and state and as you put it "I know that some will argue that the presence of any overtly religious language or imagery should be off limits at the inauguration. But they are wrong. In fact, such people are every bit as fanatical in their rejection of religion as the religious folks to whom they object."

God, Whom I have met, looks at the person, not the label. God forces Himself on no one. One of the things that is rather amazing is the fact that some that do not believe in God follow Him better than some that believe in God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Very well-said. Thank for being one of the few theists on here to show rational thought on this issue.