Barack Obama Promoting More Prayer, Excluding More Atheists
Barack Obama
Ebenezer Baptist Church
January 20, 2008
Photo: Barry Williams/Getty Images
"To me, it's entirely a new frontier of religious politics," said University of Washington communications professor David Domke, who has written about presidential rhetoric and religion. "Prayer will be different than what we've experienced since Reagan, with a much more substantial interfaith element."
White House officials said Obama's prayer policy is not a dramatic departure from previous presidents' habits or from his days as a candidate. "Invocations have been standard practice for us since the beginning of the presidential campaign," said spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki. "We view it as a brief time of reflection before an event."
Prayers have been said before Obama appearances at rallies for the stimulus program, for example, in Florida, Indiana and Illinois.
Source: The Washington Post
Even organizers for George W. Bush's events report that they didn't have to incorporate as many prayers as they are seeing in official events today. Apologists insist that the prayers are all "interfaith" and "inclusive," but do those words really mean anything substantive or are they just excuses people tell themselves in order to make themselves feel better about abusing government authority to promote religion?
For one thing, there are no prayers which are "inclusive" for atheists and agnostics because we don't say any prayers to any gods. The deliberate inclusion of prayers, then, is the deliberate exclusion of nonbelievers — a group that is growing as a size of the population. Prayers as part of an official government event also aren't "inclusive" when it comes to secularists — believers or nonbelievers — who object to the state being used to advance any sort of religious agenda.
What about religious believers who object to public prayers, or who don't believe in prayer at all for some reason? They also aren't being "included." Finally, even the very Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are clearly being pandered to may object because by insisting on "interfaith" prayers that are supposed to be "inclusive," it's necessary to eliminate most of whatever specific theological content the prayers might have, and this is objectionable to sincere believers:
"The larger danger isn't for the Obama administration, it's that the prayer becomes so vacuous," said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College and an editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. "That, to me as a person of faith, is a larger worry."
When the government decides to give an official place of honor to prayers, officials must choose between sectarian and "interfaith" prayers. Sectarian prayers necessarily endorse a narrow theological viewpoint above all others and this is naturally something many officials don't want to do. The choice of "interfaith" prayers is thus appealing in contrast, but the more "inclusive" you make such prayers, the less appealing they become to sincere religious believers — and there is no way to make such prayers inclusive of everyone.
That's why there is simply no place for prayers at official government functions. You can't have prayers that really make everyone happy and in the end, you'll not only upset at least some people but you'll undermining the very point of having a secular government in the first place. There's no gain and all loss.
Our Father or mother or abstract gendreless deistic concept…
Who art in heaven or earth or somewhere outside space and time or who is simply the definition of creativity or the ground of being or even just the precondition that life can exist at all, without any fixed geographical location…
Hallowed, possibly, be thy name, whatever it is or is not, you may not even have one…
Thy kingdom, queendom or gender-neutral reign come, or has come, or is everything, or maybe just the possibility of everything…
Thy will be done, or has been done, or will be done, or can’t possibly not be done, if you have a will at all if you might not, whatever that will may or may not be, even though it might be incomprehensible, or clearly known through the human heart, or the existence of consciousness, or through some books, but not to take those books too literally, or maybe take some bits literally…
et cetera.
Maybe we could talk Obama into adding the phrase “or not” at the end of each prayer. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
what’s the big deal? whether you call it prayer or a time of reflection I don’t see a problem. If you don’t want to pray-don’t pray. We are so consumed with not excluding anyone from anything that we’ve lost sight of our indiviuality. If we expect others to be tolerant and accepting of our beliefs we should be accepting and tolerant of theirs. Obama has demonstrated through his actions that even if his views differ from others he is respectful of their views!
“what’s the big deal? whether you call it prayer or a time of reflection I don’t see a problem.”
The New Testament kind of makes it clear that making a public spectacle of prayer is a bad thing. (Matthew 6:5) Therefore the people who do it are intentionally proselytizing themselves to everyone else.
“We are so consumed with not excluding anyone from anything that we’V lost sight of our indiviuality.”
By ingratiating prayer into public assemblies, we are all forced to ether pray or not pray. You see, then we lose the choice to not choose. If prayer is not part of an event,then before it starts, I can choose to pray, or I can choose not to pray, or I could choose to clean out my wallet, or etc. the list is endless. But if prayer is pat of the event, then at some point I am forced to choose between praying or not praying. Adding prayer to an event is most definitely not encouraging to individuality, it is quite the opposite, at some point we are all asked to “pick a side”.
“If we expect others to be tolerant and accepting of our beliefs we should be accepting and tolerant of theirs.”
It isn’t a matter of being intolerant of someones belief that prayer works or is worthwhile, to expect that they do it on their own time. It is an intolerance of someones ACTIONS. If someones actions are disruptive and not productive, who wouldn’t protest? It seems christi willingham has missed the point of the article.
The point is, there are many people who ARE excluded when these so called ALL inclusive prayers are led in a public forum, and when you exclude people you are exercising the very definition of intolerance.
I voted for Obama, not Obama’s pastier. If Obama wants to take a moment to express his hope for success of, say, his stimulus package, he is more than welcome, I will listen, and it will give me insight into his feelings and/or plans for the future, but if some strange guy stands up and starts asking an invisible being for different things, what good is that doing?
If we expect others to be tolerant and accepting of our beliefs we should be accepting and tolerant of theirs.
While this is true, Obama is the President! He should not use his position to advocate or endorse anything religious, whether it is “inclusive” or not. It’s in the foundation of our country that religion and politics not be intermingled. He should just leave prayer in his church or home.
I tend to see this as part of Obama’s protective coloration, like his vaunted “bipartisanship”: trying to deflect criticism from the right as much as possible.
Also, he has always seemed to be very timid politically, whether because his convictions really are very centrist, or because he is afraid to arouse too much opposition. Unfortunately, he is getting plenty of attacks from the right anyway, so I think he should just jump right into the pool.
And though he has mentioned “unbelievers,” etc., once or twice in public, I agree that he is way too religious for my taste. But though the non-religious section of the American public is slowly increasing, it is still a small minority, and politically atheists are the most despised group in the country, so one could hardly expect a politician like Obama to be very sympathetic to us.
This is a no-win situation for Obama. Every time he does this, he gets criticised all around. At least a secular leader (as opposed to a theocrat like Obama) would only get criticised the first few times he doesn’t have all this medicine man mumbo jumbo before getting down to reality.
Drew… don’t let your political affiliations get in the way of calling a spade a spade… no free pass just because he’s your “chosen one”…
Maybe he should flip a coin or use a deck of cards.
I don’t see this as a big deal. I don’t watch Obama 24/7, so I don’t really know how much or how little he incorporates his “prayer policy” before public speakings. I have heard him say “I do believe in the power of prayer” but that statement could easily be said by most anyone in the public eye who has a need to appeal to the masses. And I do watch his weekly addresses, and am impressed that he doesn’t end them with ‘God Bless America’ or anything silly like that.
I see Obama as having potential to be a great president, and if he is imposing a religious agenda into his administration, I’m not seeing it. Let us not forget that his father was an atheist and his mother was an agnostic. And regardless of what the man’s true beliefs are, I don’t think he could have ever been elected into office if he didn’t publicly identify with a religion. I’m ready for an athiest president myself, but sadly 85% of America isn’t quite there yet.
Matt, you don’t see a flagrant disregard for the constitution as a big deal? How very apathetic of you.
I wonder if you will see it as a big deal when you are forced to pray before you go to work, or when your kids are forced to pray in school, or when any of the other goals, of those he is pandering to, are realized.
“if he is imposing a religious agenda into his administration, I’m not seeing it.” Look again, here is just one quote by Mr. Obama
“we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you’ve got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.” would you like to hear more?
Is this pandering? perhaps. OR perhaps it is truly what he feels. This isn’t proof that he has a religious agenda…or is it?