What I'm NOT saying about what I don't like about all of the religion in the inauguration

[Silent3]

Last edited Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Rather than start by saying what I don't like, it looks like I need to work backwards from what I'm NOT saying, and from some basic facts that have NOT eluded me.

I'm quite happy that Obama is now the president. Oh, I have my differences of opinion with him on some issues, but by and large, especially with alternatives like Romney, I'm very happy Obama won reelection.

Oddly enough, I'm not shocked that people pray in churches. Why this needs to be said, I'm not sure, but I apparently have to make sure everyone understands that I'M NOT SHOCKED.

I'm fully aware that my TV can be turned off, or turned to another channel. I've taken that startling factor into account. Ain't modern technology wonderful?

I'm fully aware that anyone can attend or not attend the inaugural.

I'm fully aware that a lot of religious trappings can be mixed into the presidential inauguration without invoking any technical violations of the law or the Constitution. I have in fact noticed that no one forced me to pray or attend a church.

I'm fully aware that a lot of things are traditions. I would hope most of you don't think "it's tradition" excuses everything, however.

My beef isn't with any one particular religious aspect of the inauguration, even if one particular aspect might become the point where "enough's enough!" springs most strongly into my mind.

Starting this thread, or any other today, isn't taking a huge amount of effort or focus away from anything important that I would or could be doing, any more than chatting about sports online or posting pictures of cats would, things I could do without any of you snapping back, "Why don't you focus on more important issues!?"

I'm not steaming, fuming, claiming my butt hurts, or anything of the sort. I watched the inauguration, or at least parts of it. I was mostly pleased, and never turned it off in a huff. If anything, I'm more frustrated by the DU reception of my complaint, and other people's complaints, about there being so much religion mixed into the inauguration. That DU reaction has me closer to tearing my hair out than anything else.

Without saying anything more, I'll challenge the reader to see if they can even remotely guess what some non-believers dislike about the inaugural being so religious, with the challenge put before them to see if they can really imagine another's point of view on this issue, and come up with something other than a straw man or exaggeration of that position to spit back in anger or derision.

[JI7]

1. many who disagree with you are non believers

[Silent3]

3. And that proves exactly what?

That there couldn't possibly be anything to complain about if other non-believers don't complain? That I should simmer down, like the "good", quiet go-along-to-get-along atheists do?

[JI7]

4. no,your argument seems to be the issue is religious people

and asking them to put themselves in yoru place or whatever.

but atheists like myself disagree with you as did many others .

[TrogL]

2. Well, my butt hurts

Damn diarrhea.

[countingbluecars]

5. Perhaps you should let it go.

You made your points. You got challenged. Starting another thread probably won't change anything.

[HERVEPA]

6. I share your frustration.

[TheOther95Percent]

7. I don't care about all the praying, but what it sometimes represents.

Like you said, prayer at public events under certain circumstances is constitutionally permissible.

What I don't like is when the person saying the prayer wants to deny me my constitutional rights like the right to marry a person of my choosing or to have control over my body or participate in public life because I am a female. Admittedly, that last one is a very small segment of the religious spectrum, but it exists. As for the first two rights, it's much easier to find clerics who do not believe in those rights and actively campaign to deny them.

I had no problem with Louis what's-his-name getting the boot. In my estimation, someone who was so diametrically opposed to the belief systems of so many who voted for POTUS did not deserve a featured role at the inauguration.

I can respect the religious traditions of others as long as they ain't quoting Leviticus with a mouthful of shrimp, pork or blood pudding while wearing a cotton/wool blend shirt.

[arely staircase]

10. what person is that? who would deny you your rights and

said a prayer at this innauguration?

[TheOther95Percent]

15. Louis Giglio

Louis What's-His-Face or Louis Giglio who withdrew from the event. My point is that I don't have a problem with prayer. I have a problem with the person doing the praying like an anti-gay cleric being given a featured role.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/anti_gay_pastor_dropped_from_inauguration_ceremonies/

A cleric from the religious left is just as capable of delivering a prayer at a public function.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear from my earlier post.

[DevonRex]

19. And one did. nt

[arely staircase]

21. yes he withdrew from the event precisely because of problems you nd i have with them

he was replaced by an episcopal priest (my own congregtaion and one that blesses same sex union.)

so what you wish would happen, happened.

[TheOther95Percent]

22. And going forward I would prefer clergy from welcoming faiths to be given prominent roles...

instead of the Rick Warrens and Louis Giglios of this world.

I probably can't hope for that in the event a Republican is elected president, but with Democratic ones that's what I would like to see.

Maybe, some day my own UU minister would be picked.

[frazzled]

8. Why not focus on the nonreligious parts of the ceremony, then, like the poem

Which is given in both the video and written forms here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=93722

It was fabulous, and no one has talked about it at all here.

We each had our favorite and nonfavorite parts of the inauguration. The one that made my skin crawl was the Kelly Clarkson song. Others adored it. Go figure. I am not religious, nor even Christian, and the prayers didn't really bother me. Actually, for the most part, the prayers were largely nonreligious anyway.

[onenote]

9. Following your lead, let me start with what I'm not saying

I'm not saying that my post is directed at anything you may have written on this topic. To be honest, too many people have written too many different things to keep straight what any individual has said. But some people have said the things to which my response is directed.

What I think bothers some people here on DU (and I know bothers me) is that some of the posts objecting to the presence of religous elements in the inauguration or other "government" ceremonies (such as "religious" music like the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the use of a bible to swear an oath, benedictions, prayers, and even speeches that contain references to a divinity, etc) do not merely express concern that the inclusion of these elements in a government ceremony violates the poster's conception of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state, but go further and express a indiscriminate antipathy towards religion. The Constitution calls for separation of church and state not because religion is bad or lacking in positive value or that churchgoers/people of faith are "silly" and not deserving of respect. Quite the opposite. The Constitutional separation of church and state presumes that religious thought is legitimate and deserving of protection (as is the choice not to be religious) -- thus I can't be forced to have a particular religious belief or any belief at all nor can I be forced not to have a religious belief.

Some of the posters, to be blunt, quite clearly look down their nose on religion and, directly or by extension, on those that identify themselves as people of faith/adherents of a religious belief. These posters make no bones about expressing their disdain and an attitude suggesting that such people are less evolved than the poster. That sort of arrogance turns people off. Bad things have been done in the name of religion. And so have good things. There are very good people who are religious adherents -- many very good progressive people. I've met them in anti-war groups, in civil right groups, in working for social justice in any number of respects. Insulting them is wrong. And from a purely political standpoint, its boneheaded.

The Democratic party is a big tent. And it needs to be a big tent. Some of its most important groups include African Americans and Latinos that, as a whole, tend to identify themselves as religious people in greater numbers than the population as a whole. It also includes Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians, members of various other Christian denominations, Muslims, and pretty much every other religious affiliation. The repubs talk about their "messaging" problem with some groups, particularly Latinos. Well, we will have a pretty fundamental messaging problem too, if people of faith feel like they are being belittled by other Democrats.

So my point is that people have to learn to live and let live. And labelling religious belief as a "silly" is intolerant and not worthy behavior for people who describe themselves as progressives. I've mentioned Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in several of my posts because, while I'm not a Christian, I view Dr. King, who by his own admission was inspired by religious thought, as one of the great progressive leaders in our nation's history and I am appalled at the arrogance of those that would demean with broad strokes religious thought without considering that they are, whether they think so or not, demeaning his life and his memory.

I close with a reference to one post I saw, in which a DUer wrote about how they "despise religious claptrap" and tune out as soon as "praying and praising invisible friends" starts. I have to imagine that was mostly hyperbole because it would sadden me to think that someone would "tune out" Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, or his Eulogy for the Martyrd Children of Birmingham, or the "Drum Major Instinct" sermon because they contain "religious claptrap." And I would hate to imagine that poster turning to a fellow Democrat listening to Dr. King's words and suggesting, directly or otherwise, that anyone who pays attention to such "claptrap" is "silly."

[arely staircase]

11. wonderful post

this left-wing episcopalian thanks you

[riderinthestorm]

12. Curious if you believe atheists/agnostics opinions on this have been "belittled" by DUers?

I think its interesting that you only focus on how persecuted ("belittled&quot believers may or may not feel...

The very first post yesterday on this was that a DUer was "disappointed" in the religious trappings. The massive pushback basically telling them to STFU for even articulating any critique escaped you or not? Watching it unfold yesterday I believe events escalated from there, and quickly went into their freefall for the rest of the day (spilling over into today obviously).

I mean this question sincerely and not as a slam on your thoughtful post.

[onenote]

14. Thank you. I think that they have. And I don't like it.

I should have been more clear. As I said, people need to learn to live and let live. That goes for those that are religious adherents and those that are not.

[CAG]

24. ++++++

[Libgirl]

30. Following your lead

This left-leaning, liberal, progressive thinking, African-American Catholic whole-heartily agrees with you. Thank you for respecting me as a "person of faith" as I respect you.

[LukeFL]

34. As a Hispanic I was raised Catholic

I go to church with my kids on Sunday's. It's a tradition in my family. I hold may differences with my church but I still go seeking spiritual guidance.

I am also very Progressive. Yes, contradictory, but I believe Jesus was, in fact, a Democrat.

Thanks for your post.

[riderinthestorm]

13. Brave effort. I'll be interested in the feedback. K&R nt

[lamp_shade]

16. Do you get invited to many social events... parties, gettogethers, meetings?

Just wondering.

[stupidicus]

17. yep, I noted that earlier, and it's not confined to this issue

every stinking time someone has a legitimate complaint about this or that, it's the same lame stuff that serves as no rebuttal whatsoever to the complaint/criticis offered, and more often than not, it doesn't even directly -- if at all -- address the issue raised.

This is particularly annoying coming from the oldtimers around here, because you'd think that such vast numbers of posts would indicate a level of knowledge of the political issues and "debating" skills that would result in more intelligent responses that those so frequently offered to the criticisms lack, like you noted.

Imo this is indicative of their awareness of that there is no substantive rebuttal to the criticisms they respond to in that way, and it is merely representative of their preference that it not be offered publicly lest it influence others. That's what I read here for months before the election in the form of "you're just trying to discourage people from voting for BHO", "you're dampening enthusiasm/undermining support", etc.

What's insulting about it is that as you noted as well, you can have complaints about this and that while still being on balance, supportive of BHO generally and while lacking any substantial or meaningful regret for your vote, much as you could have had concerns/criticisms prior to the election with full intent of voting for him anyway. It's like having criticisms and those things are mutually exclusive concepts -- unless you're part of the "club" that always seems to rise up around here to smite their "lessers". I've seen some of them offer criticisms with no backlash whatsoever.

I'm inclined to think the dynamics of all of this is best explained by the stratification that has occurred in DU membership of the participating kind, and as a territorial matter, there's a group of "popular" kids that seek to preserve their rule and control of the dialogue/narrative around here through this kinda conduct. And this place is I'm sure, full of those with less time on DU who want to be part of the "in" crowd, and therefore lend their voices in full-throated support, and often as hatchetguys. Who the "popular kids" are is easy enough to figure out simply by seeing who most often gets the records and movement onto the homepage. They can of course also be identified by who their enemies are to some extent -- the better known "third way" criticizers around here for example.

Personally I find this type to be bunch of dishonest weaklings whose only true strength lies in numbers, not the merits of any particular case they argue/attack in the manner you described here.

good post by the way

[Silent3]

25. Thanks. At least just prior to the election...

...I could better understand some of this bullshit, the tension of people worried about Obama's reelection, worried (mostly irrationally) that anything the slightest bit negative or dispiriting could tip the balance and lead to defeat.

But now? Much less excuse for it now.

[cali]

18. rehashing your original op on this, I see.

whatthefuckever.

[riderinthestorm]

20. Gosh, its like NOBODY re-hashed the same atheist scolding from yesterday on today's DU.

[Laochtine]

23. Crap, I've heard it before

Being an atheist, you know you get crapped on. I expect it and welcome that hate :0 warm and fuzzy

[ScreamingMeemie]

26. Gosh I wish I (who believes in nothing) had the time to run these small, petty

issues through my head. How do you do it?

[Silent3]

27. Somehow being less shallow...

...must create more time. It's a mystery.

[ScreamingMeemie]

28. All that from one post...

Some of us are able to put things in perspective. I have far "deeper" things to worry about.

[Silent3]

33. Even narrow is a perspective

And you've got that one down pat.

[Tikki]

29. What President Obama said at his inaugural is what some want, hope, expect to hear...

As I non-believer I just don't get shocked..I don't think it's an attack on me
and the fact that a few of us non-believers have mentioned the religiousness
doesn't mean we are attacking you.

It was just a day we could all talk about what we observed, heard and felt.
Would I be excited if President Obama took a time in the long day to mention
American non-believers? Sure, why not!!

I don't need a reaffirmation to know who I am. But a friendly nod my way never hurts.


Tikki

[haikugal]

31. Applause!!!!!

Welcome to DU fellow traveler!

[forestpath]

32. Thank you for trying.