Inaugural Prayers Fit America as a Civilization

Discussions aside for a moment, I do celebrate the fact that Mr. Elliott personally replies the comments made on his post.

TO PAGANPLACE:

When "secular" & "secularism" are distinguished as two modes of thought, the latter means what Wikipedia calls "hard" (anti-religious) secularism.

"2....."Secular" means non-sacred, & "secularIST" means anti-religious, (usually) atheist."

No, Reverend, before this turns into a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap, it *doesn't.*

Who taught you that?

Oaths and Swearing . . . Why?

As kids it was "Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye,"
Then the adolescents’ adage “I swear on a stack of Bibles,"
Today as adults “So help me God”.
All the above was/is to cause others to trust us.

Now there was a day I stood before an altar and entered into a commitment to my wife,for life. It was a promise made before God and with God as witness, in other words a vow to be kept.
As Pres. Obama invokes Gods name, he too will be swearing an oath with God as witness.
Pray for him.

The Problem ...

We live in a world of lies; to be honest most of our system it seems is built upon them. Lies are what make this world a tough place to exist in.

Just imagine if humans stopped lying. What would happen to us?

Now that would be “Change We Can Believe In.”

Word-clarify about our differences as Americans, by freeing us from logomachy (as the Greeks called fighting over words), can further our acting TOGETHER toward common national and human ends. Obama is a master of making this distinction. Thinking Americans are not divisible into word-herds: Obama calls himself progressive, conservative, liberal, secular, religious depending on areas of life-involvement & issues under debate.

A few examples of important disinctions:

1.....America is a highly religious SOCIETY with a deliberately secular GOVERNMENT.
2....."Secular" means non-sacred, & "secularIST" means anti-religious, (usually) atheist.
3.....America's FOUNDING document (the Declaration of Independence, declaring us a new political entity) is religious (speaking of the "Creator" & "Nature's God"): our government's FORMATIVE document (the Constitution) is secular (with legal, non-sacred language).
4....."Christian" does not mean "CONSERVATIVE." Today is Martin Luther King day, memorializing a Christian RADICAL.

Secularism and atheism are not the same thing.

'One Nation Indivisible' should not be divided by 'under God.'

This is not a nation of Christianity vs non-Christian-conservative subjects.

As much as some try to make one of it.

I think that the main division the article establishes is between religion and secularism/atheism.

This being the case, my questions is, why fear secularism so much?

TO SPARROWHAWK

You are being divisive, and a part of America Two, when you claim that "the country was founded as a secular society." Samuel Huntington was correct: America ("the country") was founded by English-speaking Protestants, & our civilization is distinctly Christian (though our present population is only mainly Christian). English common law (with Roman law behind it) is the basis of our legal system; and as a legal document, our Constitution uses exclusively legal language ("secular" only in the sense of being nonreligious in wording). / One should note a difference between the Constitution's nonreligious wording and the Christian identity of its signers, who in conclusion date by the phrase "in the year of our Lord" Jesus (the Latin, "anno domini," does not suggest "our"; but "domini" is a specific reference to the Lord Jesus).

Yes, Obama's aim should be the aim of all Americans, namely, to COME TOGETHER with a vision of the common good transcending all our differences. As for "splitting us into groups," which you accuse me of, I identify existing groups
for clarity of understanding and discourse. The need for this is apparent in your failure to recognize that you were speaking for a group (which I call America Two) rather than for America in your narrative of our country's founding: you were being divisive, and were not aware of it.

I think that a person's faith should be an important part of such an act as swearing to protect our constitution. There should be meaning to the oath, and if adding a religious note gives it that extra meaning...then so be it. If a person is going to protect what protects us then by all means there should be a binding, even if it is just to that persons honor.

Bush kept on saying he made his oath to protect the people...no he did not. He made an oath to protect the Constitution. Maybe that is why he was a lousy president...he had no idea what he was taking an oath to do and he did not protect the Constitution. Call on what you hold sacred to seal your oath, know what you are swearing before your God/s to. Then allow all people to have the same right...So help me God...or So Mote it Be.

terra

Again with the divisive language, Willis? Come on, you did this same thing in your post on gay marriage. You said homosexuals as a group could NEVER reach the level of dignity as the rest of us. Now you are implying that people who don't think we need (key word here is need) to have religion in public inaugurations are part of some "America Two"? And then you go on to claim that this America Two is revisionist because we claim this country was founded as a secular society? Luckily, there is no need to even be revisionist about it. We have a very handy foundational document called the Constitution. The oath is included in this document, and it does not include religious language (none of the Constitution does). I'm all for an individual candidate choosing to invoke their god at the end of their oath, but I don't see why you want to be so divisive and start splitting us into groups.