Greta Christina, and I presume many other atheists, have taken umbrage at President Obama’s references to God in his inaugural speech. The following excerpt summarizes her position well:
"Do I need to point out how grotesquely inappropriate it is -- in a massive and public government ceremony, addressed both to and on behalf of a secular nation populated by people of many faiths and many people of no faith -- to assert that everything that happens comes from God and belongs to him? To assert that there's something wrong/ needing of forgiveness about "forgetting" God and claiming our achievements for ourselves? To not only invoke a prayer on behalf of the whole country, but to do so in a specific prayer that comes from his particular religious tradition, in the name of his particular god?"
To begin, I completely disagree that this is a secular nation. To be sure, we have (or are supposed to, at any rate) a secular government. Yet the majority of our nation remains religious and, in particular, Christian. And, given the custom to speak of populations in general terms, it is no more inappropriate to call America a Christian nation than it is to call, say, California a blue state. Both generalizations are true, even though there are plenty of non-Christians in our nation, just as there are plenty of Republicans in California.
Furthermore, although such non-believers regularly appeal to the separation of church and state, they either fail to understand what this principle really means, or consciously promote a distorted interpretation of it in order to advance their secularist agenda. According to the First Amendment, our government must make “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Of course, there have been instances in which this principle has arguably been violated (erecting a monument listing the Ten Commandments on state property comes to mind). Yet Obama’s inaugural speech is not one of them, for this same amendment explicitly protects one’s right to freely exercise his or her religious beliefs, and nowhere in the Constitution does it deny this right to public servants. If, on their inauguration, new presidents were required to swear on the Bible or otherwise express fidelity to the Christian faith (or any religion, for that matter), then we would clearly have a case in which the separation of church and state has been violated. This is not the reality, however.
I understand that President Obama’s religious remarks might make non-Christians and unbelievers a bit uneasy. However, the solution is not to deprive him of his constitutional right to publicly express his religious beliefs (for a Christianity that cannot be lived out is no Christianity at all), but to put their T.V.s on mute until the religious talk has ceased.
"Do I need to point out how grotesquely inappropriate it is -- in a massive and public government ceremony, addressed both to and on behalf of a secular nation populated by people of many faiths and many people of no faith -- to assert that everything that happens comes from God and belongs to him? To assert that there's something wrong/ needing of forgiveness about "forgetting" God and claiming our achievements for ourselves? To not only invoke a prayer on behalf of the whole country, but to do so in a specific prayer that comes from his particular religious tradition, in the name of his particular god?"
To begin, I completely disagree that this is a secular nation. To be sure, we have (or are supposed to, at any rate) a secular government. Yet the majority of our nation remains religious and, in particular, Christian. And, given the custom to speak of populations in general terms, it is no more inappropriate to call America a Christian nation than it is to call, say, California a blue state. Both generalizations are true, even though there are plenty of non-Christians in our nation, just as there are plenty of Republicans in California.
Furthermore, although such non-believers regularly appeal to the separation of church and state, they either fail to understand what this principle really means, or consciously promote a distorted interpretation of it in order to advance their secularist agenda. According to the First Amendment, our government must make “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Of course, there have been instances in which this principle has arguably been violated (erecting a monument listing the Ten Commandments on state property comes to mind). Yet Obama’s inaugural speech is not one of them, for this same amendment explicitly protects one’s right to freely exercise his or her religious beliefs, and nowhere in the Constitution does it deny this right to public servants. If, on their inauguration, new presidents were required to swear on the Bible or otherwise express fidelity to the Christian faith (or any religion, for that matter), then we would clearly have a case in which the separation of church and state has been violated. This is not the reality, however.
I understand that President Obama’s religious remarks might make non-Christians and unbelievers a bit uneasy. However, the solution is not to deprive him of his constitutional right to publicly express his religious beliefs (for a Christianity that cannot be lived out is no Christianity at all), but to put their T.V.s on mute until the religious talk has ceased.
