SubscribeI am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.--To Benjamin Rush
Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.--To Benjamin Waterhouse
I do want to discuss Warren himself and his presence there today in more detail later (no, really, I promise). For the most part, he did a fine job. His prayer was heartfelt, if a bit workmanlike and mostly -- deliberately and carefully -- it was inclusive. It exhibited, in other words, signs of the nascent but not yet fully realized inclusiveness and tolerance that I think our new president was hoping to nurture in both Warren and his constituents by including him -- and thus them -- in today's ceremony. Here's hoping that Warren will continue to follow the trajectory of what he already seems to believe even when that clear path leads to places where his loudest critics fear to go.I thought Warren's Prayer sucked, especially compared to Lowery's at the end.
The only place he really stumbled, I think, was at the point where he was doomed by an impossible conflict between the demands of the occasion and the demands of his most-strident constituents. Those strident evangelicals hold that any public prayer that fails to include the shibboleth phrase "in Jesus name" is tantamount to blasphemy or to syncretism or compromise or denial. Or something. This insistence has little to do with theology -- it's more about declaring sectarian power, about marking one's territory by pissing on hydrants, trees and anyone who disagrees with you. Warren tried to split the difference and it just didn't work. But at least he recovered nicely there at the end, seeming to recognize the boundless inclusiveness of that pronoun, Our father ...
In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man.Lincoln on Christianity:
All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man's welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it. To you I return my most sincere thanks for the very elegant copy of the great Book of God which you present.
That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures.
"At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national motto."[1]That seems disingenuous to me; there already was the (vastly superior) de facto motto in use from 1782: E Pluribus Unum
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.So why those four? Now I might be reading too much into that rhetorical structure. I doubt it because it just seems too precisely worded. To me, it sounds as if he's expanding the American foreign policy agenda into peace brokering in Asia, perhaps a nod to India-Pakistan and the civil war in Sri Lanka.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God, and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.So its not just that Obama throws in the word "nonbeliever" at the end of phrase. Obama explicitly rejects the Manifest Destiny ideological model that America exists because of, and in order to spread a hegemonic Christianity through the world (and its secular baby sister, the Enlightenment Imperative of Hitchens.) The vision of American potential greatness and value within world politics Obama gives us is unabashedly pluralistic and multicultural. This is some pretty radical stuff here (for Americans) and my inner Gore Vidal is frankly shocked that Obama is getting away with this kind of rhetoric.
This is the belief that gave birth to our nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens....
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.That's very interesting, as the message is quite clear that from experience (civil war and may I add religious wars) we can learn that fighting each other over some belief leads to, more often that not, undesiderable consequences that are entirely avoidable.
Mr. Bush replied, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."which doesn't dehumanize atheists, but sets them as "not part" of "us", which is just a categorical exclusion that doesn't change the fact that both atheists and agnostic do exist, do belong to communities and that resent being described as "them" or dangerous, amoral aliens.
« Older What is race in the Obama age? Some blacks say the... | A clinic nurse first removed h... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by plexi at 11:42 AM on January 20 [1 favorite has favorites]