January 22, 2001

12:03 PM

The opening prayer at the inaugural ceremonieswas delivered by Rev. Franklin Graham (Real Audio NPR broadcast -- forward to 45:47 for the prayer). You'd think he was ushering in the government from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Maybe GW could have done better by choosing a Unitarian minister to help us unite? (Transcript inside.)
posted by ewagoner (54 comments total)

A transcript of the prayer:

Blessed are you, oh lord our god. Yours, oh god, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, oh lord, is the kingdom. You are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you. You are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and to give strength to all. As president Lincoln once said, "We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties from heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown, but we have forgotten god. It behooves us then to humble ourselves before the offended powers, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness. Oh lord, as we come together on this historic and solemn occasion to inaugurate once again a president and vice president, teach us afresh that power, wisdom, and salvation come only from your hand. We pray, oh lord, for president-elect George W Bush and vice president-elect Richard D Cheney, to whom you have entrusted leadership of this nation at this moment in history. We pray that you'll help them bring our country together so that we may rise above partisan politics and seek the larger vision of your will for our nation. Use them to bring reconciliation between the races, healing to political wounds, that we may truly become one nation under god. Give our new president and all who advise him calmness in the face of storms, encouragement in the face of frustration, and humility in the face of success. Give them the wisdom to know and to do what is right, and the courage to say no to all that is contrary to your statutes and holy law. Lord, we pray for their families and especially their wives, Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney, that they may sense your presence and know your love. Today we entrust to you President and Senator Clinton and Vice President and Mrs. Gore. Lead them as they journey through new doors of opportunity to serve others. Now, oh lord, we dedicate this presidential inaugural ceremony to you. may this be the beginning of a new dawn for America as we humble ourselves before you and acknowledge you alone as our lord, our savior, and our redeemer. We pray this in the name of the father, and of the son the lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy spirit. Amen.
posted by ewagoner at 12:04 PM on January 22, 2001

This post is soooo wrong and on so many levels, and since I'm a uniter and not a divider, I will point out that linking a real media file instead of an actual page url is a *no-no*
posted by tiaka at 12:16 PM on January 22, 2001

That's the most stomach-churningly revolting thing I've seen in ages. Why does anyone continue to pretend that a separation of church and state exists in this country? Sheesh.

Thanks for the post.
posted by rushmc at 12:22 PM on January 22, 2001

Equally disturbing is Bush's Executive Order declaring yesterday a day of Prayer and Thanksgiving. As for the prayer, we know that athiests aren't true Americans so we're not included in the unity thing. And as for the thanksgiving? Sounds like somebody's thankful the whole country didn't explode over his stolen election.

Interesting how the presidents quoted are Lincoln and Jefferson, the first a non-religious rationalist, and the second a Deist who used "God" as a synonym for "Providence."
posted by chino at 12:47 PM on January 22, 2001

Great: "Give them the wisdom to know and to do what is right, and the courage to say no to all that is contrary to your statutes and holy law. "

I guess soon we'll have to stone men who touch menstrating women.
posted by Doug at 1:04 PM on January 22, 2001

Maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush believes in something and chose for his inauguration to reflect his beliefs?

Maybe this just comes as a shock to us after 8 years of Clinton, for whom no belief was so strong that a triangulating expediency could not overcome it, and who could summon the appearance of resolve only when confronting independent counsels and impeachment prosecutors trying to hold him accountable for a total lack of self-control?

People with true resolve and integrity are unafraid of declaring their beliefs and being guided by them. That some of us have somehow come to expect as our due finger-in-the-wind, least-common-denominator conduct in even the most of solemn of occasions is troubling.

Maybe Bush will govern with such continued forthrightness that the Democrats will actually wake up and find themselves a few candidates who actually share the same qualities.
posted by MattD at 1:08 PM on January 22, 2001

"We pray, oh lord, for president-elect George W Bush... to whom you have entrusted leadership of this nation..."

Hear that? Dubya is a Divine Right monarch.

And you thought it was merely his earthly father who handed him the Presidency.
posted by ratbastard at 1:15 PM on January 22, 2001

Ummm... truth be told, Rev. Billy Graham (Franklin's pop) gave the invocation for the last eight inaugurations, including Pres. Clinton's 1997 inauguration.
posted by Avogadro at 1:16 PM on January 22, 2001

chino: you're right, Lincoln and Jefferson weren't Christians of Franklin's stripe. too many Christians have a funky God and Country and Founding Fathers thing.

otherwise i agree with tiaka. the opinions expressed in this discussion seem vastly overblown. to compare Graham's prayer to 'the handmaid's tale' is such extreme rhetoric that it loses touch with reality.

if you don't like the fact that Bush chose a pray-er of traditional Christian faith, that's another thing.

in response to rushmc, to intimate that there isn't separation of church and state in this country is ridiculous. as a matter of fact, there would be less separation if Bush couldn't pick such a person to pray such a prayer. the church in that case would be something more secular (for example, Marxist).

when people express themselves and their beliefs, does that automatically exclude those who disagree? no. sheesh. how can we build a pluralistic society with such conclusions?

sure, the Church has too often coopted the other way. let me admit it first.

but there's got to be freedom of expression, even for traditional Christians, doesn't there? otherwise, we start on a path to being free from other people's beliefs that, if logically followed, would isolate us all from one another.
posted by Sean Meade at 1:18 PM on January 22, 2001

I seem to recall that the only reason the son gave the invocation rather than the father is that Billy Graham went into surgery the day before. So this invocation has little to do with Bush himself and a whole lot to do with the long tradition of the last eight or nine U.S. Presidents receiving spritual counseling from the same man.
posted by mikewas at 1:22 PM on January 22, 2001

Oh, and by the way, acording to Merriam-Webster, "god" and "providence" are synonymous:

providence: God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny

posted by mikewas at 1:24 PM on January 22, 2001

but there's got to be freedom of expression, even for traditional Christians, doesn't there?

They have freedom of expression just as I do as a evolutionist. But I do not think it is right to make statements such as "You are the ruler of all things..." when it is a statement generalizing American's beliefs. If a president got up and said "There is no god or jesus, etc" the Christian right would be in an uproar. I am just tired of our government which does claim to be separated from religion turn around and hold public prayer at such a ceremony. If Bush had an event funded by his own money, not my taxpayer money, then that is fine in my book as his freedom of expression.
posted by magellan at 1:32 PM on January 22, 2001

I can't find one thing wrong with that post, including the real audio link.
posted by sudama at 2:01 PM on January 22, 2001

Here's the part I have problems with:

Wealth and honor come from you.

Ok. First, Mr. Graham would seem to be intimating that the enormous fortune amassed by Bush and Cheney was given to them by God; not by semi-corrupt business dealings. Second, this is junk Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible does it even SUGGEST that being upright and maintaining a good relationship with God will result in you getting an earthly bonus. In fact, the Christian movement as it saw itself just after the death of Jesus was a profoundly anti-wealth group (that site is liberally interspersed with biblical verses to prove my point).
Modern Christianity (maybe since the council of Nicae) has sold out its origins by aligning itself with the elite and politically powerful and that's just one of the reasons to be disgusted by it. Remember, it's easier "for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." --MT 19:24. Despite the ridiculous attempts by christians to explain this away, it does give me a smug satisfaction that Jesus seems to be proscribing Bush from going to heaven.
posted by norm at 2:02 PM on January 22, 2001

acording to Merriam-Webster, "god" and "providence" are synonymous.

Well, if I wanted an assessment of the intricate negotiation of religious belief in the 18th century -- which basically provided the US with its mission statement -- I wouldn't be looking in Merriam-Webster. (Possibly the big OED, though.)
posted by holgate at 2:08 PM on January 22, 2001

I'm glad to know that M/W agrees with Jefferson. But Jefferson's reference to God in Bush's Executive Order is a reference to a divine order or benevolent (and impersonal) guide, not an almighty being in need of praise or petition.

Providence isn't JC's dad, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that neither Graham nor Bush had Providence in mind when they asked me to pray.
posted by chino at 2:10 PM on January 22, 2001

when people express themselves and their beliefs, does that automatically exclude those who disagree? no. sheesh. how can we build a pluralistic society with such conclusions?

This argument holds no water when applied to the president. He is supposed to represent the pluralistic society that America is. With public prayers such as this at his inauguration, he is showing that he doesn't understand, and probably doesn't care, about all non-christian viewpoints.
posted by Neb at 2:10 PM on January 22, 2001

“I’ve heard the call,” [George W. ] Bush said. “I believe God wants me to run for president.”

This from an interesting article on Dubya's religious issues in the September 2000 issue of George magazine. The article frightened me... but then I reassured myself that there was no way this bumbling dumbass could get himself elected... shudder.
posted by champignon at 2:10 PM on January 22, 2001

hi, Nathan.

i agree with you that their wealth is probably largely ill-gotten. tying them and that to God is very troubling

but your second statement isn't entirely true, though i agree with much of your conclusion.

the Bible, especially the OT, actually links wealth and honor to God a lot. cf all of Proverbs, the end of Job, many psalms, and 1 Chr 4.10 for a sample. also, traditional Christian faith says that everything good comes from God (eg James 1.17 - every good and perfect gift is from above).

the early church was definitely outside of the establishment. however, it's too simplistic to say they were anti-wealth. for example, there were wealthy Corinthians whom Paul did not rail against.

modern Christianity has often sold out to the elite, especially since Constantine made it the official faith of the Roman Empire. but not all Christians have sold out, which Nathan doesn't generally give credit for (what do you think, Nathan?).

let's not take Mt 19.24 out of context. Jesus goes on to say 'nothing is impossible with God.'.

however, i hope i've made it clear that, while this topic is more complex than Nathan described it, i am a big advocate for Christians being more self-critical about their faith and their wealth. Jesus told a guy to sell everything he had, give it to the poor, and follow Him. and not enough of us do it. sure, maybe we're not all called to it, but shouldn't some of us be?
posted by Sean Meade at 2:23 PM on January 22, 2001

won't work, Neb. then the president becomes the walking result of an opinion poll. let's do away with him. the Congress would be better suited to such a task.
posted by Sean Meade at 2:24 PM on January 22, 2001

"John Slut for Prez!!"
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:27 PM on January 22, 2001

The idea that Bush is "standing up for his beliefs" by having such a prayer at his inauguration is bogus, precisely because of norm's "junk Christianity" argument. Bush is no more a man of principals than any other President of our recent past. This prayer is exactly the watered-down lowest-common-denominator crap that it pretends not to be. It is a carefully worded message for the minority of American's who supported Bush--a sloppy mixture of bad Christianity and bad Populism. It is Bush's version of "I feel your pain," only the man can't put a sentence together effectively enough to say it himself, so he needs others speak for him.
posted by jpoulos at 2:39 PM on January 22, 2001

then the president becomes the walking result of an opinion poll.

You're probably right. It's better like it is, with the president only representing the views of rich, white, christian, republican americans.
posted by Neb at 2:42 PM on January 22, 2001

At least we were spared the poetry part.
posted by thirteen at 2:49 PM on January 22, 2001

i don't see how Nathan's 'junk Christianity' argument applies here exactly, especially since i already critiqued it pretty thoroughly.

i think Bush may actually have some principals, though i don't think they're thoroughgoing enough, especially on the faith-side. i do think he is mightily compromised, especially by the special interest money. but he might actually believe in Christianity to some degree.

Franklin Graham has a certain amount of integrity. you disagree with his values, but i'm confident this prayer was not written by the Bush-handlers (eg Ari Fleischer).

i don't support Bush. i do support people's rights to express themselves. and i do support trying to have debates accurately reflect the reality that sparks them.
posted by Sean Meade at 2:51 PM on January 22, 2001

Uh... who was gonna be the alternative to The Man? Who was gonna represent black, poor, and atheist?
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:52 PM on January 22, 2001

Oops sorry, that last one was directed to Neb.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:52 PM on January 22, 2001

i didn't say the president should only represent them (those adjectives don't fit me, by the way). i think people can represent others who are not like them. again, we should do away with the office otherwise.

good point, John13.
posted by Sean Meade at 2:54 PM on January 22, 2001

I think that The Handmaid's Tale, although obviously a dystopian extreme, has always been a useful interpretive tool for how many conservative values reflect a firm belief in Christian patriarchy. For example, anti-abortion folks defend the sanctity of life and the welfare of the child. But actual state policies suggest that this "pro-life" stand mainly serves an agenda that 1) markedly downgrades the status of women and 2) cares little for the child's welfare once born. A comprehensive study by Jean Schroedel of Claremont Graduate University in California shows that states with the strongest anti-abortion laws are also the ones that nonetheless have the weakest laws on prosecuting those who batter or murder pregnant women, and spend far less on education, health care for needy children, and adoption of children who have physical and mental handicaps. It is perhaps not surprising that these same states also have lower ratios of female-to-male earnings for identical occupations and positions.
posted by Joe Hutch at 2:57 PM on January 22, 2001

Good prayer is poetry. And yes, 13, we were spared it.

Shouldn't you be denying healthcare to poor people on another board, instead of bashing art on this one?
posted by chino at 3:02 PM on January 22, 2001

GWB's reference to the good Samaritan in his inauguration speech actually had a ring of when Thatcher used the parable as an implicit defence of 1980s self-obsessed entrepreneurship. "Well, the Samaritan could only help out because he'd made enough money to do so." This from the "woman" who said "There is no such thing as 'society'."

I thought it was bollocks then, and I do now.
posted by holgate at 3:07 PM on January 22, 2001

Exactly who was the last president who didn't at least feign religion? This is a non-issue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:24 PM on January 22, 2001

sonofsamiam: Uh... who was gonna be the alternative to The Man? Who was gonna represent black, poor, and atheist?

Ideally the president would. The point I was trying to make is, in a democratic republic such as ours, even if the president doesn't belong to all the groups (racial, religious, idealogical, and otherwise) that exist in this country, I'd think it would be in his and the country's best interest to make himself knowlegable about them. We made fun of Bush senior because he'd never seen a barcode scanner in a supermarket, and I believe his son has developed a similar blind eye to all that he does not come into direct contact with. I believe he is going to focus most of his time over the next few years furthering the worldview of rich, white, christian, republican americans, and not americans as a whole, but only time will tell...
posted by Neb at 3:29 PM on January 22, 2001

By "further the worldview" do you mean use his presidential authority to do things commonly associated w/ r/w/c/r/a's?
What about rich, black, christian, republicans? Or, rich, white, christian, democrats? Or rich white, atheist republicans?
Do you really mean "the rich?"
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:35 PM on January 22, 2001

Jesus, I messed up again. I meant to ask if the other groups I mentioned have very different aims than r/w/c/r/a's. Which was leading to my last question. Dang.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:37 PM on January 22, 2001

aaron: Yes, I'm still disturbed. Mostly by the fact that such orders assume we all adhere to religious beliefs. I'm no fan of Bill (a sold-out liberal, in my estimation), but I will say that his order sounds more like a Jeffersonian paean to Providence than Dubya's bible thumping.

Prayer is not a policy and has no place in government. I find executive actions encouraging us all to pray offensive. If I believed (as W. seems to) that there was only one true religion, I would probably make that belief the core of my political actions. That, Sean, does make him principled. It also makes him dangerous.


posted by chino at 3:44 PM on January 22, 2001

Shouldn't you be denying healthcare to poor people on another board, instead of bashing art on this one?

I was not aware my visa had expired, but thanks for noticing, I feel extra special now.

And who was bashing art? I was disparaging poetry. There is an oceans worth of difference.
posted by thirteen at 3:52 PM on January 22, 2001

Yes, you did. And you were all lying.

The media often does an atrocious job of separating fact from fiction in a presidential campaign. I wasn't aware the barcode story about Bush was even in doubt.
posted by rcade at 3:59 PM on January 22, 2001

Damn liberal media. Always going after those conservatives. Never lie about those liberals. Nope. Never.
posted by owillis at 4:02 PM on January 22, 2001

<monkeys flying out my butt>l;
Maybe Bush will govern with such continued forthrightness that the Democrats will actually wake up and find themselves a few candidates who actually share the same qualities.
</monkeys flying out my butt>
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 4:38 PM on January 22, 2001

The Inaugural Address seems to me to be the place to look for religious references. Many are drawn from Acts and the Epistles. This kind of thinking has consequences...
posted by rschram at 5:57 PM on January 22, 2001

I'm gonna defend this. First of all, it's traditional to have a prayer at the inauguration, just as it's traditional to have a chaplain pray at the opening of a session of Congress. Second, somehow the Graham family has become a sort of national chaplain, so having his son up this time isn't surprising. Though clearly conservative Christians, they've been non-partisan (and in fact, even recently-elected Democrats have been born-again Christians), and for the most part, Graham the elder stays out of politics. Third, the Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving is also traditional; Clinton declared one as well.

I'm sorry, but this ignorance of history sometimes makes me feel MetaFilter is a bunch of kids.

Now, as a non-born-again Christian who votes Democratic, I'm among those who found the repeated references to Jesus Christ as Lord -- a Southern Baptist meme -- a little disconcerting. The language in the prayer was pretty annoyingly hierarchical and uses man-as-instrument language as opposed to God-as-guidance language. I think there's a point there to labeling it Jeffersonian -- it could easily have been written that long ago. (I suppose it's entirely possible that some parts of it were.) Yes, I wish the speaker had been closer to the religious middle, but the President chooses whom he likes, anyway. I don't want to divorce religion from public life. I just want to keep the rights of religious minorities intact.
posted by dhartung at 6:08 PM on January 22, 2001

Thomas Jefferson, of course, was one of the architects of the Bill of Rights. Although his religious beliefs were fairly complex -- he had his own Bible consisting almost entirely of Jesus' parables from the Gospels -- he was a lifelong opponent of religious establishment. To quote him:

...the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S... The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

posted by snarkout at 6:33 PM on January 22, 2001

Whoa, you go offline for a few hours, and WHAM! the thread explodes. I love MeFi.

(sean)
i agree with you that their wealth is probably largely ill-gotten. tying them and that to God is very troubling

I didn't tie it to God, Rev. Graham did. See my pullquote waaaaaay up there.

the Bible, especially the OT, actually links wealth and honor to God a lot. cf all of Proverbs, the end of Job, many psalms, and 1 Chr 4.10 for a sample. also, traditional Christian faith says that everything good comes from God

The NT supercedes the OT in terms of Christian doctrine. Many things in the OT no longer apply, see various cleanliness rules and dietary restrictions. In other monetary scripture, Mosaic law prohibited charging of interest, and yet many christian bankers have no problem giving people the shaft. I can't believe that would overrule the explicit words of Jesus.

Jesus led a revolutionary movement in Jewish thought. This movement was primarily rooted in a general perception of lower classed Jews that the elite Jews had sold out to their colonial Roman masters and their corrupting wealth (cf. throwing money changers out of the temple).

More to the point of your quote, Sean, I guess it would depend on how you define what a "good thing" is for it to come from God. Jesus said the love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim 6:10). I can't see how that's suddenly defined as good.

As for Dan's comments, you're totally right, it's been a tradition to publicly pray since the founding of our country (Ok, I guess that is not that long ago). I just bristle when I see this overt representation of piousness that has diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity. I think they're being "like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray. . . [so] that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward." (Mt 6:5) Yeah, we'll see about that, Jesus.



posted by norm at 7:08 PM on January 22, 2001

Verse 7 of that passage also comes to mind:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (KJV)

Or...

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. (NIV)


posted by smeat at 7:29 PM on January 22, 2001

Oh, whoops. You re-read, you see typos. Obviously Jesus didn't say that money was the root of all evil, Paul did. I think my point is unchanged, though.
posted by norm at 7:47 PM on January 22, 2001

Jesus [or Paul] said the love of money is the root of all evil (1Tim 6:10).

The NIV of 1Tim 6:10 says, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." It seems to me that that changes the meaning significantly from being the root of all evil, to simply being a root of many kinds of evil. The statement does not make money out to be inherently bad.
posted by ayedub at 8:11 PM on January 22, 2001

thank you, Joe Hutch, for your thoughtful input.

yes, pro-life people don't seem to be pro-life before and after the pregnancy of the specific woman involved and certainly not when the child gets to death row. i have a problem with those things. and the often low status of women is a real problem. well said.

good point, Neb. i agree with you that G2 will probably focus on those folks. and i don't agree with it. i think it's bad. this case may be symptomatic of that, but it doesn't have to be in principle.

now we're getting somewhere.

your point is clearer now, chino. thanks. such an order encouraging people to pray could be offensive. i see that. i would say prayer is not a policy and has little place in government, except for self-expression, which is important. i still think the inaugural prayer was within those bounds. G2's principles may make him dangerous, but i doubt it. there are a lot of checks. and hopefully he will act within reason to not project his values onto others (eg prayer).

but this is a tough line to walk, because policies should reflect values and people elected this president (one way or the other). again, let me make clear, i don't agree with most of his policy leanings.
posted by Sean Meade at 7:28 AM on January 23, 2001

Nathan,

right. i was agreeing with you that Graham's tying was troubling.

again, it's oversimplification to say that the NT supercedes the OT. Jesus said 'i came to fulfill the law.'. the cleanliness rules and dietary restrictions (and sacrifical system) changed. it would still be great if less or no interest were charged (even the OT economics by themselves are amazingly humanitarian).

the love of money is a root of many kinds of evil. more, Jesus said you can't serve two masters, God and money. but if you're serving God (the context of Jesus' statement) money can be used for good. i've already stated by anti-wealth position. but it's nuanced. wealth isn't bad in itself, but it is very dangerous.

here's a question i thought of last night, Nathan. would you allow for non-junk Christianity? if so, what does it look like?
posted by Sean Meade at 7:34 AM on January 23, 2001

but there's got to be freedom of expression, even for traditional Christians, doesn't there?

As was previously mentioned, freedom of expression does not extend to having my tax dollars pay for someone's religious blather under government auspices.
posted by rushmc at 8:33 AM on January 23, 2001

"bumbling dumbass"

Boy, that's just fun to say. Over and over again.
posted by rushmc at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2001

I'm sorry, but this ignorance of history sometimes makes me feel MetaFilter is a bunch of kids.

Someone's certainly full of themselves today, aren't they?

That something is traditional means it's been done repeatedly in the past. It does NOT mean it is or ever was right. I can't speak for the others in this thread, but I have been arguing from the standpoint that it is wrong, not that it is a uniquely Bushian sin.
posted by rushmc at 8:36 AM on January 23, 2001