Yes, our new Potus has, for the first time in an address by a President, explicitly included in his description of America that faction among us who don’t have imaginary friends. Hemant Mehta commented on this, but I saw it live via satellite and felt included. My fellow curly-headed 47 year old with a foreigner for a father took the oath of office, and included me. Not by name, but by my most often ignored demographic categories.
In the name of Fair and Balanced, the name of Jesus was also uttered for the first time during an inaugural ceremony during a painfully theistic invocation. Many in the VIP section crowd appeared uncomfortable with it.
Ted Kennedy, brother of the first Irish-American and/or Catholic president, was there to see it. Then he was taken to the hospital. Four former presidents dating back to the election of 1976 were there. And I forego naming the other 2,000,000 or so present at the moment.
The scene was so overwhelming that the President Elect (a seasoned and elegant public speaker) briefly fumbled during the oath. Quite a day!
Quite a day indeed! Despite all the required religious references at the inaugural, the mention of "non-believers" was a thrilling moment for me!
I echo your celebration, Dan. But hold on, about the "fumbling." It was Justice Roberts who fumbled several times, while Obama tried to say what he was supposed to say rather than repeating Roberts' mistakes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28753348/
I was stunned by the number of explicit references to imaginary friends. First, there were not one, but two, preachers who spoke at the actual inauguration ceremony, then there was another one who gave a prayer at the luncheon afterward. Yikes!
D.J. Grothe's website sent me a link to this post by the Center for Inquiry:
The entire post is available here.
Here's more on the fact that Justice Roberts flubbed the oath: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/…
Slate's Dahlia Lithwick claims that both Roberts and Obama made slip ups: Obama for cutting Roberts' off too early, and Roberts for misplacing the "faithfully" in the oath. Eventually, Obama accepts Roberts' mistake and repeats his error in order to move on. See here: http://www.slate.com/id/2209298/
I wonder if the misplaced "faithfully" could technically invalidate this (admittedly symbolic) practice. I'm waiting for the "let's see Obama's birth certificate" conservatives to make such a claim, at least.
I didn't mean to impugn the prez and his speechifying prowess. It would have been nice if the Chef Justice had been able to stand in the freezing wind before the multitudes and smoothly do his duty. But what we saw is what we got.
And for God count, Mehta tracks how many mentions of deities were involved as part of a plan to figure donations to secular causes: Inauguration Prayer #3.
For those interested in knowing Obama's exact words, here they are:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_w…
Does that mean Biden is President? Or, for gosh sakes, Bush? ARRRRRRRgh!
Someone had a bit of fun here: Jon Luc Picard responds to Rick Warren.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj-TlRi_uj4
Here's a commentary on a Fox news commentary on those 3 little words:
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/twoXZE9U0Io&border=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/twoXZE9U0Io&border=1&color1=0xcc2550&color2=0xe87a9f&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>
He did it again, you know!
Pres O once again said, "…and non believers," right in the middle of the interview with Al-Arabya TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO_lLttxxrs
I forget if it was in Part 1 or Part 2.
It warms my heart every time I hear it!!
Dan: That Youtube about FOX's analysis of Obama's recognition of non-believers was right on the mark. Thanks for sharing it.
Why is it that these theistic authority figures are allowed to make the sweeping generalizations that show they know nothing about atheism, but anyone who contradicts their belief needs to go and get a doctorate in theology before he's allowed to speak about religion or the religious?
Alison: I wish I knew. It all sounds like aggressive bigotry to me. Perhaps it's because people who do not believe in supernatural (or to use Ann Druyan's perferred term, "subnatural" http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/11/12/ann-d… beings haven't founded opulently decorated institutions to publicize and defend their views. They don't speak as a coherent voice that yells "Bigot!" every time someone accuses all non-believers of being selfish, pleasure-obsessed and damned. What else can you call it that "Bigotry" when non-believers are judged simply by their non-belief in "God" regardless of how much they are dedicated to improving their communities?
Randall Balmer – CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/balmer.non…
Dale McGowan published a nice take on this issue: http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=1702
He basically chastised those non-theists who took umbrage at the perceived implication that they have no beliefs, rather than appreciating the expressed inclusion.