Comments on: Obama's Inaugural Cavalcade Continues http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Steve Bowen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43550 Steve Bowen Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:27:14 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43550 According to the BBC this morning Obama was sworn in again in the White House map room, due to the fluffs made at the inauguration. Interestingly they report that this second oath was not given on the bible as "one was not readily available". If true that should give the fundies something to worry about; an American President doesn't have a bible readily available? shocking! According to the BBC this morning Obama was sworn in again in the White House map room, due to the fluffs made at the inauguration. Interestingly they report that this second oath was not given on the bible as "one was not readily available". If true that should give the fundies something to worry about; an American President doesn't have a bible readily available? shocking!

]]> By: RiddleOfSteel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43536 RiddleOfSteel Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:37:27 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43536 Well, the inauguration has come and gone. Last night I listened to a snippet from a right wing radio personality, explaining how thrilled he was with the Rick Warren invocation. The radio host considered the Warren talk a great way to evangelize, to influence people towards Christianity. He was very happy with the mention of Jesus and the "Lord's Prayer". The problem - he is correct. The message went out to a huge world wide audience. It was a great platform to deliver the message, and there is a reason marketers want their products associated with celebrities - the products often sell. Having all this religious stuff associated with Obama and broadcast to the world probably did a good job of selling too. Certainly it reinforces a legitimacy of religion in the minds of many. We had the morning church service, then Warren, then the usual "god talk", with the justices reciting the phrase "so help you god", as if it were part of the Oath of Office. Then there was church again next morning. In contrast, what good public relations did non-believers get out of the event? Well, we got a brief mention by Obama that we actually exist. Thanks a lot. I wonder which product the public is going to buy? Well, the inauguration has come and gone. Last night I listened to a snippet from a right wing radio personality, explaining how thrilled he was with the Rick Warren invocation. The radio host considered the Warren talk a great way to evangelize, to influence people towards Christianity. He was very happy with the mention of Jesus and the "Lord's Prayer". The problem - he is correct. The message went out to a huge world wide audience. It was a great platform to deliver the message, and there is a reason marketers want their products associated with celebrities - the products often sell. Having all this religious stuff associated with Obama and broadcast to the world probably did a good job of selling too. Certainly it reinforces a legitimacy of religion in the minds of many. We had the morning church service, then Warren, then the usual "god talk", with the justices reciting the phrase "so help you god", as if it were part of the Oath of Office. Then there was church again next morning.

In contrast, what good public relations did non-believers get out of the event? Well, we got a brief mention by Obama that we actually exist. Thanks a lot. I wonder which product the public is going to buy?

]]> By: Shemhazai http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43459 Shemhazai Sun, 18 Jan 2009 04:23:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43459 Once again, Xtians can't read their own damned book. It might say that man on man sex is an abomination (funny, it never actually says homosexuality. . .), but it also uses the same phrase to condemn pork, rabbits, shaving, women without hats, back talking children, women on their period, disobedient slaves . . . and it goes on. They also tend to gloss over the whole "THOU SHALT NOT FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER, BITCHES" that G-dawg put in the Big 10 (ammended, of course, in the later sequals), whenever anyone brings up . . .oh, I don't know, A FUCKING POINTLESS WAR THAT'S KILLED THOUSANDS OF OUR SOLDIERS AND EVEN MORE INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Once again, Xtians can't read their own damned book. It might say that man on man sex is an abomination (funny, it never actually says homosexuality. . .), but it also uses the same phrase to condemn pork, rabbits, shaving, women without hats, back talking children, women on their period, disobedient slaves . . . and it goes on.

They also tend to gloss over the whole "THOU SHALT NOT FUCKING KILL EACH OTHER, BITCHES" that G-dawg put in the Big 10 (ammended, of course, in the later sequals), whenever anyone brings up . . .oh, I don't know, A FUCKING POINTLESS WAR THAT'S KILLED THOUSANDS OF OUR SOLDIERS AND EVEN MORE INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

]]> By: Erich Vieth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43437 Erich Vieth Fri, 16 Jan 2009 05:13:21 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43437 Ebonmuse: I completely agree with you. As to why we are unlikely to see an atheist give an invocation any time soon, I would add this: in addition to the exclusion non-believers being primarily due to religious bigotry, it also has a practical explanation. People like to mark momentous occasions with rituals, but atheists aren't exactly known for their rituals. Ebonmuse: I completely agree with you.

As to why we are unlikely to see an atheist give an invocation any time soon, I would add this: in addition to the exclusion non-believers being primarily due to religious bigotry, it also has a practical explanation. People like to mark momentous occasions with rituals, but atheists aren't exactly known for their rituals.

]]> By: Virginia http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43436 Virginia Fri, 16 Jan 2009 03:49:53 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43436 It's not just democrats offending their own allies by pandering to the religous right -- they are also betraying many of the values of equality, civil liberty in the process. In Hong Kong we are having a heated debate as to amendments of a law dealing with Domestic Violence -- in the proposed amendments it is going to include extended families (uncles, aunties, cousins), non-wed couples and gay couples. The religious right see this as a start of a slippery slope to "legalize" gay marriage -- and there are democratically elected legislators (who claim they embraces the values in a democratic society) voting against it !!! Those who wanted to vote against the amendments are Christians and they wanted to pander the religous right voters here!!! It's not just democrats offending their own allies by pandering to the religous right -- they are also betraying many of the values of equality, civil liberty in the process.

In Hong Kong we are having a heated debate as to amendments of a law dealing with Domestic Violence -- in the proposed amendments it is going to include extended families (uncles, aunties, cousins), non-wed couples and gay couples.
The religious right see this as a start of a slippery slope to "legalize" gay marriage -- and there are democratically elected legislators (who claim they embraces the values in a democratic society) voting against it !!! Those who wanted to vote against the amendments are Christians and they wanted to pander the religous right voters here!!!

]]> By: Mathew Wilder http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43435 Mathew Wilder Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:32:23 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43435 Damn! Typo and I can't fix it! Grrr. Damn! Typo and I can't fix it! Grrr.

]]> By: Mathew Wilder http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43434 Mathew Wilder Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:29:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43434 Christopher, I'm with you an Steve. I hate ceremonies and rituals and all the pomp, for anything. When it comes from the government I especially hate it, gnecause it's MY (and YOUR'S too) money being wasted on frivolity. Christopher, I'm with you an Steve. I hate ceremonies and rituals and all the pomp, for anything. When it comes from the government I especially hate it, gnecause it's MY (and YOUR'S too) money being wasted on frivolity.

]]> By: Greta Christina http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43431 Greta Christina Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:13:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43431 I don't quite see the "no inaguration ceremony at all" thing. People like rituals, especially for major rites of passage. We have graduations, weddings, funerals, retirements parties, and so on. We like to gather together to essentially say, "This is an important occasion for all of us, and we want to mark it and give it the attention its due." Not all of us, obviously... but it's a very common human trait. I think it's charming one, and I don't see it doing any great harm. (And in an atheist context: I think atheists need to reassure believers that letting go of God doesn't mean letting go of the basic human activity of comforting/ celebratory ritual.) Granted, the Obama inaugural events are getting a little... shall we say large. But this is a BIG rite of passage for a lot of people in this country. Any inauguration is: but I think this one is more than most. It's historic for the obvious reason -- our first African American President -- plus an awful lot of people in this country are breathing an enormous collective sigh of relief that the disastrous W. administration is finally, <i>finally</i> coming to an end. Yes, the Obama inaugural celebration is getting pretty lavish... but it seems to be by popular demand. I don't quite see the "no inaguration ceremony at all" thing. People like rituals, especially for major rites of passage. We have graduations, weddings, funerals, retirements parties, and so on. We like to gather together to essentially say, "This is an important occasion for all of us, and we want to mark it and give it the attention its due." Not all of us, obviously... but it's a very common human trait. I think it's charming one, and I don't see it doing any great harm. (And in an atheist context: I think atheists need to reassure believers that letting go of God doesn't mean letting go of the basic human activity of comforting/ celebratory ritual.)

Granted, the Obama inaugural events are getting a little... shall we say large. But this is a BIG rite of passage for a lot of people in this country. Any inauguration is: but I think this one is more than most. It's historic for the obvious reason -- our first African American President -- plus an awful lot of people in this country are breathing an enormous collective sigh of relief that the disastrous W. administration is finally, finally coming to an end. Yes, the Obama inaugural celebration is getting pretty lavish... but it seems to be by popular demand.

]]> By: Leum http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43430 Leum Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:49:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43430 Yeah, but your PM is the head of government, not the head of state. Our president is both. And when you get a new head of state, it's a pretty darned big event. Yeah, but your PM is the head of government, not the head of state. Our president is both. And when you get a new head of state, it's a pretty darned big event.

]]> By: Steve Bowen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43428 Steve Bowen Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:53:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43428 <blockquote>Why stop there? How about no celebration, pomp or ceremony of any kind and just throw the guy into the oval office and put him to work -</blockquote> Yup! I have to cheer that one. It's prettey much what happens with the UK Priminister;quick chat with Her Maj then nose to the grindstone.

Why stop there? How about no celebration, pomp or ceremony of any kind and just throw the guy into the oval office and put him to work -

Yup! I have to cheer that one. It's prettey much what happens with the UK Priminister;quick chat with Her Maj then nose to the grindstone.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43426 Ebonmuse Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:13:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43426 <blockquote>Oh, just one clarification: Robinson isn't speaking at the inauguration. He's speaking at the big pre-inauguration party happening on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It's sort of like, "Yes, we're having a bigot speak at your graduation... but we've got this really great guy you're going to love at the pre-graduation party on Friday night." Thanks a lot.</blockquote> I didn't know that. (I also read the other day that Warren has offered statements of support to the pro-bigotry Anglicans who've split with the church over its recognition of gay rights.) I guess it would have been too much to hope for for the two of them to share the stage, which might have offered some entertainment value at the very least. <blockquote>If anything, Robinson's presence makes me angrier than Warren's, because it shows how little Obama understand the reasons for our outrage.</blockquote> I wouldn't necessarily go that far. I think Obama probably is somewhat backed into a corner, politically speaking. He chose Warren underestimating the depth of progressive anger that choice would evoke. Now he can't openly retract that invitation without going against his own stated message of inclusion (Warren could have made things easier on Obama by voluntarily withdrawing, but he doesn't seem inclined to do that). I realize that we don't see the anti-gay evangelical vote as one worth courting, but Obama evidently does. The choice of Robinson is unlikely to fully assuage progressive anger, but I assume Obama is hoping it will at least mitigate it.

Oh, just one clarification: Robinson isn't speaking at the inauguration. He's speaking at the big pre-inauguration party happening on Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. It's sort of like, "Yes, we're having a bigot speak at your graduation... but we've got this really great guy you're going to love at the pre-graduation party on Friday night." Thanks a lot.

I didn't know that. (I also read the other day that Warren has offered statements of support to the pro-bigotry Anglicans who've split with the church over its recognition of gay rights.) I guess it would have been too much to hope for for the two of them to share the stage, which might have offered some entertainment value at the very least.

If anything, Robinson's presence makes me angrier than Warren's, because it shows how little Obama understand the reasons for our outrage.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. I think Obama probably is somewhat backed into a corner, politically speaking. He chose Warren underestimating the depth of progressive anger that choice would evoke. Now he can't openly retract that invitation without going against his own stated message of inclusion (Warren could have made things easier on Obama by voluntarily withdrawing, but he doesn't seem inclined to do that). I realize that we don't see the anti-gay evangelical vote as one worth courting, but Obama evidently does. The choice of Robinson is unlikely to fully assuage progressive anger, but I assume Obama is hoping it will at least mitigate it.

]]> By: Christopher http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/01/obamas-inaugural-cavalcade-continues.html#comment-43420 Christopher Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:43:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=932#comment-43420 <blockquote> How about no invocation?</blockquote> Why stop there? How about no celebration, pomp or ceremony of any kind and just throw the guy into the oval office and put him to work - just like what would happen at any other job? What's so special about the political class that we must celebrate their "work" (if you can call it that) over the work of any other class out there?

How about no invocation?

Why stop there? How about no celebration, pomp or ceremony of any kind and just throw the guy into the oval office and put him to work - just like what would happen at any other job? What's so special about the political class that we must celebrate their "work" (if you can call it that) over the work of any other class out there?

]]>