RSS Feed
Obama Should Seek Divine Blessings the Way He Sees Fit
It's up to the president-elect to decide whether to have a prayer and who should pray, and whether to punctuate the oath of office with "so help me God."
This long-standing tradition does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- Michael Newdow's lawsuit notwithstanding. Unlike teacher-led prayer in public schools, clergy-voiced prayer at graduation ceremonies, and postings of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, for example, in this instance there is insufficient government sponsorship to trigger constitutional prohibitions.
The only thing the Constitution requires is the oath of office, calling on the president-elect to promise to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The rest of the inaugural is an expression of the personal predilections of the president-elect, not official acts as President of the United States. The religious aspects of the inaugural celebration, not only do not offend the Establishment Clause, but arguably serve the President-elect's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The president-elect should be able to seek, and have others invoke, divine blessings in a way that is meaningful to him.
Still, this President-elect and future ones need to keep in mind they will lead the entire country, not just those who share their faith tradition. America's dizzying diversity reflects a multitude of religious manifestations and many who embrace no religion at all. Without falling into vacuous, lowest-common-denominator civil religion, expressions of religion in the inaugural ceremony should reflect and respect this diversity, in terms of what is said and who is selected to say it.
More particular expressions of religion should be reserved for private -- if openly publicized and widely attended -- services in appropriate houses of worship.
By
J. Brent Walker
|
January 20, 2009; 10:30 AM ET
| Category:
Religion & Politics
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Pastor Rick's Evolution |
Next: A Hopeful Soul
Posted by: EddDoerr | January 16, 2009 2:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Had Rev. Walker actually read the injunction lawsuit, he would have realized that what he is advocating above is exactly what the lawsuit is about.
Newdow & friends aren't suing the president-elect for personal expression of religion. The lawsuit even explicitly recognizes the president-elect's right to say "so help me god" or any other religious expression he wants during the ceremonty. They are suing the people AROUND the president-elect: the Supreme Court Chief Justice - of all people, the person Americans should most expect to uphold the letter and intent of the Constitution - and the inaugural team for injecting and institutionalizing religious expression into the inauguration. As agents of our government, these people should be expected to avoid even the appearance of violating Constitutional prohibitions and assure that all Americans viewing and participating in the ceremonty are represented by the government to which the president-elect is taking an oath.
The Baptist Joint Committee does great and important work on keeping state and church separate. It's a shame that Rev. Walker missed the ball on this one.
Posted by: besamo805 | January 14, 2009 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Brent Walker's commentary is right on target. Incidentally, on Jan 15 DC federal court judge Reggie Walton ruled that he had no authority to prevent Pres-elect Obama from adding a personal religious comment to his Jan 20 oath of office, which had been challenged by a group of atheist organizations. -- Edd Doerr, Pres., Americans for Religious Liberty