PDA

View Full Version : What happened to the Presidential Inauguration?


ParentalAdvisory
01-20-2005, 11:40 AM
I turned on MSNBC to watch some of the Inauguration. Instead, it seems, it was some kind of hidden Thursday mass I didn't know about. Every frickin' word was riddled with God. WTF is going on at the Whitehouse that turned it into a church house? Were past Inaugurations like this?

Bricker
01-20-2005, 12:17 PM
Oh, the horror! The word "God" was uttered! In public! By government officials! Goodness, I hope no children were in earshot.

GaWd
01-20-2005, 12:19 PM
It drives me absolutely nuts. I'm not an atheist, either. Make of that what you will.

Sam

World Eater
01-20-2005, 12:24 PM
Oh, the horror! The word "God" was uttered! In public! By government officials! Goodness, I hope no children were in earshot.

Not once, every other word. See the distinction?

gobear
01-20-2005, 12:26 PM
Well, he is the president of Jesusland, after all.

Jaade
01-20-2005, 12:35 PM
Oh, the horror! The word "God" was uttered! In public! By government officials! Goodness, I hope no children were in earshot.

I wasn't watching the Inauguration, but I have to say that I agree with ParentalAdvisory, GaWd and World Eater. I am a Christian, albeit one that is not affliated with any church ATM, and does not follow the teachings of the church I was raised in. But the regularity with which Bush invokes the name of the Lord is discomforting, even to me.

We have separation of church and state for a reason. I understand that it isn't quite as separate as some would like, with regard to the words on currency referencing God, and the words in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that GW Bush whole-heartedly believes in the Lord. I think he is a very faithful man. I don't think that his faithfulness should spill over so much into his political career. I don't think he should be quite as vocal about his faith as he has been. I'm not saying that his views are wrong or right. I just think he's using a poor platform to voice his opinions.

Zebra
01-20-2005, 12:37 PM
Don't you remember the pulpit, I mean podium from the convention?

What did you expect?

Bricker
01-20-2005, 12:44 PM
Not once, every other word. See the distinction?

Except it wasn't literally every other word.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 12:49 PM
I wasn't watching the Inauguration, but I have to say that I agree with ParentalAdvisory, GaWd and World Eater. I am a Christian, albeit one that is not affliated with any church ATM, and does not follow the teachings of the church I was raised in. But the regularity with which Bush invokes the name of the Lord is discomforting, even to me.

We have separation of church and state for a reason. I understand that it isn't quite as separate as some would like, with regard to the words on currency referencing God, and the words in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that GW Bush whole-heartedly believes in the Lord. I think he is a very faithful man. I don't think that his faithfulness should spill over so much into his political career. I don't think he should be quite as vocal about his faith as he has been. I'm not saying that his views are wrong or right. I just think he's using a poor platform to voice his opinions.

I disagree, and thankfully I still live in a country which permits personal expression of religious faith by public officials.

Of course, you're free to be discomfited, and vote accordingly.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 12:51 PM
Except it wasn't literally every other word.

Now that would sound pretty stupid, but for all intents and purposes it was overused bigtime.

Jaade
01-20-2005, 12:52 PM
I disagree, and thankfully I still live in a country which permits personal expression of religious faith by public officials.

Of course, you're free to be discomfited, and vote accordingly.


Of course, I never said that he shouldn't be allowed to express his faith.


I did ;)

kaylasdad99
01-20-2005, 12:54 PM
I wasn't watching the Inauguration, but I have to say that I agree with ParentalAdvisory, GaWd and World Eater. I am a Christian, albeit one that is not affliated with any church ATM, and does not follow the teachings of the church I was raised in. But the regularity with which Bush invokes the name of the Lord is discomforting, even to me.
Just as an aside, I think it would be a marvelous thing to be affiliated with a church ATM. The transaction fees could be set to 10%. A guy could really rake in the big money with one of those babies.

GaWd
01-20-2005, 12:55 PM
I disagree, and thankfully I still live in a country which permits personal expression of religious faith by public officials.

If said public official is working in an official capacity at the time, I would like him to keep his faith to his owndamnself. If on the other hand, the 5 fucking o'clock news is interviewing the asshole on his ranch, and he feels the need to pray, so be it. I would never force my faith upon the public, let alone the entire nation and I'd appreciate it if my voice wasn't stifled by the fucking religious right.

Of course, you're free to be discomfited, and vote accordingly.

I am, and I do.

Sam

ParentalAdvisory
01-20-2005, 12:57 PM
Except it wasn't literally every other word.

Well, I'll be fair and say that he wasn't saying "god" every other word. But just about every public official, or singer that got up to there, said something about the "lord" in one way or another. Why donít they just practice their beliefs in private? The office has a duty to uphold. And talking about their beliefs... well their beliefs often contradict the constitution in which he has sworn to protect.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 12:58 PM
Now that would sound pretty stupid, but for all intents and purposes it was overused bigtime.

I disagree.

Now, if we were debating what molecule was formed by two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, there would be no debate - I could disagree all I liked, but the answer is definitively WATER.

Here, however, the answer is obviously more subjective -- how much use is 'overuse?'

There are two possible objective yardsticks I can think of -- a legal one, and a popular one. Did the use of 'God' in these ceremonies cross the Constitutional line into prohibited Establishment territory? And from a popular standpoint - did the use of 'God' and these ceremonies offend a majority of the American voters?

I'm fairly confident that the answer to both OBJECTIVE questions is 'no'.

gobear
01-20-2005, 12:58 PM
I disagree, and thankfully I still live in a country which permits personal expression of religious faith by public officials.

Of course, you're free to be discomfited, and vote accordingly.

Personal expressions of religious faith are fine, a great tradition that resonates strongly with the sentiments of the majority of Americans. However, in Bush's mouth, the name of Jesus is blasphemy.

Jesus wouldn't mock a woman on death row pleading for her life.

Jesus wouldn't authorize the torture of prisoners.

Jesus wouldn't imprison suspects indefinitely.

Jesus never approved writing religion-based bigotry against a minority into law.

To those who say that Bush is a godly man I say , in what way?

lieu
01-20-2005, 01:01 PM
I turned on MSNBC to watch some of the Inauguration. Instead, it seems, it was some kind of hidden Thursday mass I didn't know about. Every frickin' word was riddled with God. The 10:00 inaguration was better. Just a lot of singing of contemporary hymns.

Cliffy
01-20-2005, 01:03 PM
And from a popular standpoint - did the use of 'God' and these ceremonies offend a majority of the American voters?

This is the appropriate standard for a pluralistic society? No, it ain't.

--Cliffy

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Personal expressions of religious faith are fine, a great tradition that resonates strongly with the sentiments of the majority of Americans. However, in Bush's mouth, the name of Jesus is blasphemy.

Jesus wouldn't mock a woman on death row pleading for her life.

Jesus wouldn't authorize the torture of prisoners.

Jesus wouldn't imprison suspects indefinitely.

Jesus never approved writing religion-based bigotry against a minority into law.

To those who say that Bush is a godly man I say , in what way?

Jesus wouldn't run for President. His Kingdom was never of this world. So a direct one-to-one comparison of what Bush did in his capacities as chief executive is absolutely inapposite.

I wish Bush had a different opinion on the death penalty, to be sure, and I agree that his support for the death penalty is not Christ-like. BUT - I am convinced that Mr. Bush, in good faith, BELIEVES it to be. In other words, reasonable people may disagree on these sorts of points without it becoming blasphemous to invoke Jesus' name.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 01:07 PM
There are two possible objective yardsticks I can think of -- a legal one, and a popular one. Did the use of 'God' in these ceremonies cross the Constitutional line into prohibited Establishment territory?

Well I'm sure no legal yardstick exists so let's just throw that out.

And from a popular standpoint - did the use of 'God' and these ceremonies offend a majority of the American voters?

So this is the new standard we use? On preview, what Cliffy said.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:09 PM
This is the appropriate standard for a pluralistic society? No, it ain't.

--Cliffy

Yes, it is -- in conjunction with the legal standard, to be sure.

BobLibDem
01-20-2005, 01:10 PM
I copied and pasted into Word. I found 3 instances of "God" and 27 of "freedom".

lno
01-20-2005, 01:12 PM
Life would be so much easier if the minority knew they should just sit down and shut up, apparently.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:15 PM
Life would be so much easier if the minority knew they should just sit down and shut up, apparently.

Hiya, strawman.

Who said that?

gobear
01-20-2005, 01:20 PM
Jesus wouldn't run for President. His Kingdom was never of this world. So a direct one-to-one comparison of what Bush did in his capacities as chief executive is absolutely inapposite.

Nonsense; Christians are called to imitate Jesus and be mindful of Him in all that they do. Bush's conduct directly contradicts that.

I wish Bush had a different opinion on the death penalty, to be sure, and I agree that his support for the death penalty is not Christ-like. BUT - I am convinced that Mr. Bush, in good faith, BELIEVES it to be. In other words, reasonable people may disagree on these sorts of points without it becoming blasphemous to invoke Jesus' name.

Way too easy. By that standard, one can excuse any abominable conduct done in God's name by believers. Hell, the 9/11 hijackers sincerely BELIEVED that they were doing God's will--do we give them a pass and refuse to condemn their behavior? Reasonable people can disagree, but it sounds very much like you are unwilling to call Bush on the contrast between his overt religiosity and his conduct in office.

ElvisL1ves
01-20-2005, 01:21 PM
Except it wasn't literally every other word.Hyperbole's okay if it's Zell Miller using it, though, isn't it? Twit.

Bush is a public official of a government which, as one of its fundamental principles, does not recognize any particular religion - and for very good reasons, as you know. An inauguration speech is a public function of that public official, as part of his duties as such. It is not a private expression of faith, as you must have known when you posted that smug bit of drivel claiming that's all it is.

Did the use of 'God' in these ceremonies cross the Constitutional line into prohibited Establishment territory? And from a popular standpoint - did the use of 'God' and these ceremonies offend a majority of the American voters?An odd statement from one who purports to take the law and the Constitution seriously. Not an odd statement at all from a reflexive Bush/GOP partisan, however.

manhattan
01-20-2005, 01:22 PM
I copied and pasted into Word. I found 3 instances of "God" and 27 of "freedom".Better still -- of those direct mentions (to be fair, there were other indirect mentions as well), one was in the context of Americans believe something not because we believe that we are a nation chosen by God and another one was a direct quote from Lincoln. And anyone who is gonna object to quoting Lincoln might as well move to Iran right now.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 01:22 PM
Rick, while I respect your talent for semantic hairsplitting and cold, black and white logic, I think he should leave the god stuff out. He comes off no better then some wacky mullah when he's spouting that bullshit.

gobear
01-20-2005, 01:23 PM
Better still -- of those direct mentions (to be fair, there were other indirect mentions as well), one was in the context of Americans believe something not because we believe that we are a nation chosen by God and another one was a direct quote from Lincoln. And anyone who is gonna object to quoting Lincoln might as well move to Iran right now.

Move to Iran now, beat the rush.

lno
01-20-2005, 01:23 PM
Hiya, strawman.

Who said that?If someone had, I would think I would have used the quote functionality. I interpreted your statement "And from a popular standpoint - did the use of 'God' and these ceremonies offend a majority of the American voters?" and the attitude conveyed in this thread to mean "The majority of people don't care, so you have no grounds to complain." Consider it how it appears to this humble reader.

In unrelated news, John Kerry's acceptance speech (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html) to the 2004 Democratic Convention mentioned God five times, fully 60% more than George Bush did today. My outrage knows no bounds. Rest assured that I am registering my disapproval throughout the internets.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:24 PM
Nonsense; Christians are called to imitate Jesus and be mindful of Him in all that they do. Bush's conduct directly contradicts that.

Nonsense yourself. No politican could be Christian under that standard.


Way too easy. By that standard, one can excuse any abominable conduct done in God's name by believers. Hell, the 9/11 hijackers sincerely BELIEVED that they were doing God's will--do we give them a pass and refuse to condemn their behavior? Reasonable people can disagree, but it sounds very much like you are unwilling to call Bush on the contrast between his overt religiosity and his conduct in office.

No. I said reasonable people. The hijackers may have sincerely believed, but their belief was objectively unreasonable.

MaxTheVool
01-20-2005, 01:27 PM
Yes, it is -- in conjunction with the legal standard, to be sure.

So if he could have taken the speech in two different directions, one, a more religious one, which got "Hallelujah"s and "praise the lord"s from the people who already support him, and left the other 48% of America (well, not all of it, but you know what I mean) feeling excluded, and a less religious one which made it clear that he represents all of the citizens of this great land, not just the religious ones, you think the first choice is a better one?

I mean, obviously, he won the election, he CAN do whatever he want. If he wants to read bible verses during press conferences, he CAN. But SHOULD he?

gobear
01-20-2005, 01:28 PM
I don't think Bush is much of a Christian, but the reflexive "EEEK, he mentioned God!" nonsense is as bad as the "EEEK, the TV mentioned gays!" from the other side.

Maeglin
01-20-2005, 01:31 PM
Nonsense yourself. No politican could be Christian under that standard.



No. I said reasonable people. The hijackers may have sincerely believed, but their belief was objectively unreasonable.

The teeming masses would love for you to elaborate on objective standards of reasonableness.

lno
01-20-2005, 01:31 PM
In unrelated news, John Kerry's acceptance speech (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html) to the 2004 Democratic Convention mentioned God five times, fully 60% more than George Bush did today.Clouded by anger, I typed 60% when I meant to type 66%. My outrage is now ten percent stronger than it was before.

MaxTheVool
01-20-2005, 01:32 PM
No. I said reasonable people. The hijackers may have sincerely believed, but their belief was objectively unreasonable.

Explain?

Good Egg
01-20-2005, 01:35 PM
What caught my ear was that preacher who said something like "We of all faiths....in the name of Jesus" and it just disenfranchised all the Jews.
Odd. ;j

gobear
01-20-2005, 01:37 PM
Nonsense yourself. No politican could be Christian under that standard.

Really? Carter didn't seem to have that problem; he had bad judgement, but he did his best to govern according to the dictates of his conscience.


No. I said reasonable people. The hijackers may have sincerely believed, but their belief was objectively unreasonable.
By whose standards? You and I agree that they were evil, but many reasonable devout Muslims believe the 9/11 hijackers were martyrs for God who now sit at His right hand. Granted, it's an extreme example, but one that shows that mere sincerity of belief is no excuse for bad conduct. Bush has approved the use of torture and deliberate lying to instigate a war that has killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. How he and you can reconcile that with faith in Christ is beyondf me.

And if you continue to defend Bush by saying that he has leaned on bad advice, then his refusal to fire his advisors, Rumsfeld especially, shows that he hasn't learned from experience.

MaxTheVool
01-20-2005, 01:38 PM
I don't think Bush is much of a Christian, but the reflexive "EEEK, he mentioned God!" nonsense is as bad as the "EEEK, the TV mentioned gays!" from the other side.

Oh, that's just silly. Every political speech ever given, by any party, ends with "and may god continue to bless these United States", or words to that effect, and not EVERY speech results in an angry pit thread from leftists.*

There's some level of overt religiosity which has to be there for a speech or event to make me feel uncomfortable, and I assume the same is true for the OP and the other participants in this thread. And it's NOT just "eeeek! he mentioned god! I'm calling my mommy and my local up-with-atheists coordinator!"




*Yes, I realize that not EVERY political speech ends with those words.

sturmhauke
01-20-2005, 01:40 PM
And anyone who is gonna object to quoting Lincoln might as well move to Iran right now.
Can I at least object to Dubya quoting Lincoln?

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:46 PM
Hyperbole's okay if it's Zell Miller using it, though, isn't it? Twit.

Hyperbole's OK no matter who's using it. I simply remember from your Zell outrage how important it is to identify hyperbole as such, which is what I was doing.


Bush is a public official of a government which, as one of its fundamental principles, does not recognize any particular religion - and for very good reasons, as you know. An inauguration speech is a public function of that public official, as part of his duties as such. It is not a private expression of faith, as you must have known when you posted that smug bit of drivel claiming that's all it is.


Bush's expression of his private faith during his inauguration ceremony does not constitute an official recognition of any faith.

In the same way, he may express his appreciation for his wife without the audience believing that the government is now mandating that all persons marry soft-spoken Texan schoolteachers named 'Laura.'

An odd statement from one who purports to take the law and the Constitution seriously. Not an odd statement at all from a reflexive Bush/GOP partisan, however.

I take the law and the Constitution very seriously, and that's why I'm happy the law and the Constitution permits such expression of faith. If you think it doesn't, I urge you to supply the relevant case law to this discussion.

plnnr
01-20-2005, 01:50 PM
Content aside, he's the most stupefyingly dull speaker I've ever heard. I could almost hear the attendees in the back rows of the platform saying, "For God's sake, shut up so we can start getting hammered."

Bricker
01-20-2005, 01:53 PM
Really? Carter didn't seem to have that problem; he had bad judgement, but he did his best to govern according to the dictates of his conscience.


But if he had to live his life emulating Christ, he never would have sought political leadership; that wasn't Christ's approach.


The question about the hijackers' conduct and objective standards deserves more words tahn I can type now. I'm not ignoring it, but I would like more time to respond.

Homebrew
01-20-2005, 02:01 PM
No politican could be Christian under that standard.Dare to dream...

HPL
01-20-2005, 02:02 PM
Content aside, he's the most stupefyingly dull speaker I've ever heard. I could almost hear the attendees in the back rows of the platform saying, "For God's sake, shut up so we can start getting hammered."

I would disagree. W is a horrible Speaker, but Kerry is just damn dull. He's smart, but every time I listen to him talk, I get the overwhelming urge to fall asleep.

I suspect he would read erotic literature and it would still be so.

W, on the other hand, may trip all over this words, may invent new words, and may piss you off..........but in any case, you're probably not going to be falling asleep after 15 seconds.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 02:15 PM
Dare to dream...

That would be your dream, wouldn't it?

World Eater
01-20-2005, 02:23 PM
Bush's expression of his private faith during his inauguration ceremony does not constitute an official recognition of any faith.


As has been previously mentioned, just because this is technically correct doesn't mean it's a good idea. I think it's an awful idea and he should shut the fuck up with the sky pixie crap.

MaxTheVool
01-20-2005, 02:28 PM
Bush's expression of his private faith during his inauguration ceremony does not constitute an official recognition of any faith.

In the same way, he may express his appreciation for his wife without the audience believing that the government is now mandating that all persons marry soft-spoken Texan schoolteachers named 'Laura.'

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the level of god-mentioning he did was unconstitutional, per se. In fact, I'm not sure if ANY level of god-mentioning, in an inaugural address, would be unconstitutional. (That's an interesting question, actually... if Jesse Jackson, who is a clergyman, had won the presidency, and had gotten liquored up, and had basically given a Christian sermon as his inaugural address, or state of the union speech, and was literally saying "only through Jesus can you go to heaven" in an official capacity as president, would that actually be, in some way, illegal? Could he be impeached for doing so?)


Anyhow, digression aside, I assume that there's at least some hypothetical extreme case in which you WOULD find the level of god-mentioning in an inaugural speech to be, if not unconstitutional, then at least inappropriate. If so, then the question becomes, where is the dividing line? What's the criterion for determining whether the level of god-mentioning is inappropriate. And you seem to be proposing "as long as 51% of the population isn't bothered, it's appropriate". Is that, in fact, what you claim? Or were you just saying that in passing?

jayjay
01-20-2005, 02:33 PM
No politican could be Christian under that standard.

Excellent! Now if we could only get them to quit lying about it and claiming to be such...

Freyr
01-20-2005, 02:37 PM
Bush's expression of his private faith during his inauguration ceremony does not constitute an official recognition of any faith.

I take the law and the Constitution very seriously, and that's why I'm happy the law and the Constitution permits such expression of faith. If you think it doesn't, I urge you to supply the relevant case law to this discussion.

I don't disagree that his expression of private faith during the inauguration is violating the separation of Church and State, but let's turn the situation around a bit. What if, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush had an epiphany and the Goddess appeared to him. The next day, he jumped on the Net and did some research and converted to Wicca. He rewrote his speech to show his new found faith, invoking the Goddess and the Three-Fold-Law.

Mr. Bush gives the same speech, but invokes the Goddess and Wiccan principles. Do you honestly think conservative Christians would sit still for that or offer plaititudes about "expressions of personal faith" ?

Sean Factotum
01-20-2005, 02:39 PM
Content aside, he's the most stupefyingly dull speaker I've ever heard. I could almost hear the attendees in the back rows of the platform saying, "For God's sake, shut up so we can start getting hammered."His father isn't much better. I stood in the hanger bay of the USS Truman while he droned on for an hour one afternoon. Montone voice, stood too far away from the microphone. I only heard the words "Barb", "Oceania", "stationed there," and "cannibalism." Very surreal.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 02:42 PM
His father isn't much better. I stood in the hanger bay of the USS Truman while he droned on for an hour one afternoon. Montone voice, stood too far away from the microphone. I only heard the words "Barb", "Oceania", "stationed there," and "cannibalism." Very surreal.

Did he at least puke or something?

Cliffy
01-20-2005, 02:53 PM
Yes, it is -- in conjunction with the legal standard, to be sure.

You are simply declaring something that I think just isn't so -- in a pluralistic society, I think people should be mindful of the fact that 51% != 100%. I think this president in particular has done a poor job of that, but it's nonethelss necessary.

--Cliffy

flickster
01-20-2005, 03:13 PM
I don't disagree that his expression of private faith during the inauguration is violating the separation of Church and State, but let's turn the situation around a bit. What if, on Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush had an epiphany and the Goddess appeared to him. The next day, he jumped on the Net and did some research and converted to Wicca. He rewrote his speech to show his new found faith, invoking the Goddess and the Three-Fold-Law.

Mr. Bush gives the same speech, but invokes the Goddess and Wiccan principles. Do you honestly think conservative Christians would sit still for that or offer plaititudes about "expressions of personal faith" ?
WTF? This would hold true for the electorate no matter what the change. If we elect someone trusting that their beliefs are one thing and they get up one day and they're something completely different, then yes the electorate has every reason to be upset. Hmmm, maybe that's why Kerry wasn't being inaugurated today, the electorate could never build any trust in what his beliefs were going to be from one day to the next.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 03:45 PM
As has been previously mentioned, just because this is technically correct doesn't mean it's a good idea. I think it's an awful idea and he should shut the fuck up with the sky pixie crap.

Well, we simply disagree. And there's a practical component to this issue: in this country, we elect our leaders by popular vote. Since it's well-nigh impossible for any national leader who espouses a "sky pixie" philosophy to get the support of a majority of voters, I'd say it's unlikely that your view will soon find expression in our elected leaders.

Bricker
01-20-2005, 03:49 PM
Mr. Bush gives the same speech, but invokes the Goddess and Wiccan principles. Do you honestly think conservative Christians would sit still for that or offer plaititudes about "expressions of personal faith" ?

I don't believe they'd say it was unconstitutional.

plnnr
01-20-2005, 03:53 PM
WTF? This would hold true for the electorate no matter what the change. If we elect someone trusting that their beliefs are one thing and they get up one day and they're something completely different, then yes the electorate has every reason to be upset. Hmmm, maybe that's why Kerry wasn't being inaugurated today, the electorate could never build any trust in what his beliefs were going to be from one day to the next.

The issue isn't the CHANGE in philosophy, the issue the Christian-right would have is the philosophy he changed to.

If, tomorrow, Bush converted to Islam, do you think he'd have the loving support and adulation he's got now? Not by a long shot, no matter how devote a Muslim he became.

Eve
01-20-2005, 04:00 PM
If, tomorrow, Bush converted to Islam, do you think he'd have the loving support and adulation he's got now? Not by a long shot, no matter how devote a Muslim he became.

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants, though? I'd hugely enjoy that show.

BMalion
01-20-2005, 04:05 PM
...but the reflexive "EEEK, he mentioned God!" nonsense is as bad as the "EEEK, the TV mentioned gays!" from the other side.


I agree with you here.

I was unable to listen to his speech but I read the transcript. Not too bad.

Anyone ever hear or read an inaugural speech that didn't mention God?

If you don't believe God exists why would you care if someone does?

Seems like some folks would only be happy if the word "God" were only whispered in closed rooms with the curtains drawn.

beagledave
01-20-2005, 04:07 PM
Clinton (http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/speeches/inaug93.shtml)'s first inaugural speech.



The scripture says, "And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not."

From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our way, and with God's help, we must answer the call.

Thank you and God bless you all.


Jimmy Carter's (http://juntosociety.com/inaugural/carter.html) inaugural speech


Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President, in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me a few years ago, opened to a timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah:

"He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)


JFK (http://www.jfklibrary.org/j012061.htm)

[quote]
..let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
[quote]

Orbifold
01-20-2005, 04:08 PM
Didn't see the speech, but I've read the transcript. In terms of reference to the almighty (I counted five, including references to the "Author of Liberty" and "the maker of heaven and earth"), Bush is actually below his personal average. And as far as I can tell, he's not trying to speak for God as much as he did in his first inaugural address. In fact part of this speech ("Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills.") were refreshing in their display of Christian humilty.

So I have to say this speech was a step in the right direction, given Bush's history.

SPOOFE
01-20-2005, 04:14 PM
the reflexive "EEEK, he mentioned God!" nonsense is as bad as the "EEEK, the TV mentioned gays!" from the other side.
I agree. We have a couple people in this thread stating that Bush should keep his religion private and out of the public eye. If I were to suggest that someone keep their sexuality private and out of the public eye, I'd be verbally lynched. I believe there's a word for such behavior. Begins with an "H". Ends with "ypocrisy".

If, tomorrow, Bush converted to Islam, do you think he'd have the loving support and adulation he's got now? Not by a long shot, no matter how devote a Muslim he became.
Care to name a SINGLE politician in the history of man that would maintain his or her constituent base if he or she suddenly started acting in stark contrast to his or her previously established behavior?

manhattan
01-20-2005, 04:17 PM
John Kerry?

Barbarian
01-20-2005, 04:23 PM
I could care less about Bush invoking God at every opportunity; he's done it all the time, and only does it so he doesn't have to obey every single wacky notion the Conservative Christian Coalition comes up with.

Me, I object to his notion of exporting freedom throughout the world. Heard that, and immediately thought of the French guys from Quest for the Holy Grail:

Freedom? No thanks, we've already got some.

Homebrew
01-20-2005, 04:24 PM
I agree. We have a couple people in this thread stating that Bush should keep his religion private and out of the public eye. If I were to suggest that someone keep their sexuality private and out of the public eye, I'd be verbally lynched. I believe there's a word for such behavior. Begins with an "H". Ends with "ypocrisy".
Then you misapprehend. The objection is not that he displays his faith in public, but that it influences political action in a hamfisted, narrow and intolerant way. Someone's personal sexuality, and mention or display thereof, aren't official public policy or laws. Bad analogy

beagledave
01-20-2005, 04:58 PM
Then you misapprehend. The objection is not that he displays his faith in public,

Really?

Jaade : "But the regularity with which Bush invokes the name of the Lord is discomforting, even to me. "

GaWd: "If said public official is working in an official capacity at the time, I would like him to keep his faith to his owndamnself."

ParentalAdvisory: "Why donít they just practice their beliefs in private? "

World Eater: "I think it's an awful idea and he should shut the fuck up with the sky pixie crap."


Umm..yeah.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 05:08 PM
Really?

Jaade : "But the regularity with which Bush invokes the name of the Lord is discomforting, even to me. "

GaWd: "If said public official is working in an official capacity at the time, I would like him to keep his faith to his owndamnself."

ParentalAdvisory: "Why donít they just practice their beliefs in private? "

World Eater: "I think it's an awful idea and he should shut the fuck up with the sky pixie crap."


Umm..yeah.

Hey for me it's like he thinks we're 100% Christian or something. I'd like to see the president be a bit more neutral on these things. While I'll respect anyones faith in whatever gets them out of bed, I find for someone as high profile as Bush, he should STFU.

beagledave
01-20-2005, 05:11 PM
While I'll respect anyones faith in whatever gets them out of bed, I find for someone as high profile as Bush, he should STFU.

Thanks for exactly proving my point to Homebrew who claimed that folks were NOT objecting to public displays of faith by Dubya.

World Eater
01-20-2005, 05:12 PM
Well, we simply disagree. And there's a practical component to this issue: in this country, we elect our leaders by popular vote. Since it's well-nigh impossible for any national leader who espouses a "sky pixie" philosophy to get the support of a majority of voters, I'd say it's unlikely that your view will soon find expression in our elected leaders.

My view being a sane normal person in office that tells the truth. :p

But yes, I agree with your point. As long as we have a majority uneducated idiots in this country, we'll have an idiot in office.

manhattan
01-20-2005, 05:21 PM
Huh-yup, huh-yup! We Merkins shore are lucky that our natchural resources include things like aerospace plants and medical devices and machine tools and computers 'n stuff or we'd be in real trouble, bein' so dumb 'n all.

ElvisL1ves
01-20-2005, 05:26 PM
Considering that we're shipping all that stuff overseas, it's not obvious that we're going to stay that smart for much longer.

Homebrew
01-20-2005, 05:28 PM
Really?


Umm..yeah.
Perhaps you missed the dependant clause of mine where I mentioned the complaints come from the way he uses his religion in a hamfisted ("faith-based charity"), narrow ("Jeezus") and intolerant ("anti-gay amendmentment") way. So yeah. You didn't see folks complaining about other politicians who are religious when they don't use it as a hammer against others.

beagledave
01-20-2005, 05:34 PM
Perhaps you missed the dependant clause of mine where I mentioned the complaints come from the way he uses his religion in a hamfisted ("faith-based charity"), narrow ("Jeezus") and intolerant ("anti-gay amendmentment") way.

Wow...I quote several posters who are INDEED complaining about PUBLIC pronouncements of faith (irrespective of public policy, they think ..rightly or wrongly, that faith expressions should be a PRIVATE matter) and you still think that no one is complaining about public pronouncements of faith..not specifically linked to public policy?

The mind boggles.


So yeah. You didn't see folks complaining about other politicians who are religious when they don't use it as a hammer against others.


I've seen plenty of posts in other threads from folks complaining about Clinton and others having public displays of faith..irrespective of public policy.

Indeed.."GaWd: "If said public official is working in an official capacity at the time, I would like him to keep his faith to his owndamnself."

shelbo
01-20-2005, 05:59 PM
John Kerry?

Heh. That was funny.
(And I voted for the guy.)

RedFury
01-20-2005, 10:10 PM
Oh came on! Quit yer whining, fools! When was the last time you elected The American Taliban for President?

Of course they should be happy and thank their sky gods -- and so should you. After all, who else put them there?

Apos
01-21-2005, 12:57 AM
If Christians think their faith is being used as a cynical political ploy, and they're cool with that, what's it to me? It's their religion they're letting get turning into a cheap political stroke, not mine.

Presidents have always taken the Bill O'Reily approach to faith: go unapologetically for the cheap exploit to stroke the crowd. Bush is no better or worse than most (well, I didn't much appreciate his dis of non-christian presidents, but then I don't much appreciate lying sacks of shit a lot more), and at least he's been willing to unequivocally state that non-religious people are Americans too: something that even past Democrats have been unwilling to stand up for. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Bush could get conservatives to sing his praises as he drives the stake through the heart of small-government conservatism, international realism, and virtually every other principle the conservative revolution was supposed to be about achieving.

Zoe
01-21-2005, 05:15 AM
It wasn't so much Bush's speech as it was the entire program. It was like a church service. But no big deal to me.

Two things stood out. One was the minister who mentioned twice in his prayer that the founding fathers had given us "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." I wondered if he was aware of when that particular phrase came to be as it is -- in the mid-1950's.

The other, and more important thing, was that everytime Bush mentioned freedom, I shuddered with the irony. If he wants an end to tyranny, let him start with Guantanamo.

He has swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And that Constitution requires due process under the law for all persons.

I don't care what religious faith he proclaims on his big day. What does concern me is the seeming lack of grasp of any real moral and ethical code of justice and decency.

tnetennba
01-21-2005, 05:49 AM
Of course they keep talking about God, to give a moral facade to the completely immoral and evil actions of this putrid adminstration. There are people so stupid in this country they will vote for Satan if he's waving a bible.

Liberal
01-21-2005, 05:53 AM
Of course they keep talking about God, to give a moral facade to the completely immoral and evil actions of this putrid adminstration. There are people so stupid in this country they will vote for Satan if he's waving a bible.Not necessarily stupid. Possibly corrupt. Possibly ignorant. But well said nonetheless.

danceswithcats
01-21-2005, 06:39 AM
Perhaps some would like to deride George Washington, who added the words "so help me God" to the sworn oath of office. He even had the unbridled temerity to show his affection for the Bible by publicly kissing it. :eek: Congress hadn't made considered a Bible for the swearing in, and had to borrow one from a Masonic Lodge.

ParentalAdvisory
01-21-2005, 09:52 AM
There are people so stupid in this country they will vote for Satan if he's waving a bible.

You mean they didn't already? :eek:

Skimming through some of the posts, it seems the retort has been, "but it's not unconstitutional to talk about God!!!" Whatever. My point was that, in speaking about God, at the same time as swearing to uphold the constitution, is somewhat deceitful. The laws of faith do not mix with the constitution. It's like putting faith on the left channel, and our rights on the right channel. And when listening in stereo, it comes out as garbage.

Bricker
01-21-2005, 09:59 AM
You mean they didn't already? :eek:

Skimming through some of the posts, it seems the retort has been, "but it's not unconstitutional to talk about God!!!" Whatever. My point was that, in speaking about God, at the same time as swearing to uphold the constitution, is somewhat deceitful. The laws of faith do not mix with the constitution. It's like putting faith on the left channel, and our rights on the right channel. And when listening in stereo, it comes out as garbage.

Garbage that's been put forth by virtually every president from Washington onwards. But don't worry - I'm sure you're right and all of them are wrong.

:rolleyes:

Zebra
01-21-2005, 10:02 AM
Jimmy Carter was probably the most devoutly religious president we ever had. The man taught Sunday School before and after his presidency. His religious values dictated much, if not all, of his policies.

Although he would love to share his religion with you, Mr. Carter would never force his religion on you. I feel that Mr. Bush and many Republicans/fundamentals would love to force their religion on me and on others.

manhattan
01-21-2005, 10:06 AM
President Carter quoted from the Bible at his inauguration.

Bricker
01-21-2005, 10:15 AM
Jimmy Carter was probably the most devoutly religious president we ever had. The man taught Sunday School before and after his presidency. His religious values dictated much, if not all, of his policies.

Although he would love to share his religion with you, Mr. Carter would never force his religion on you. I feel that Mr. Bush and many Republicans/fundamentals would love to force their religion on me and on others.

Here's a quiz: who mentioned "God" more often: Jimmy Carter in his inaugural speech in 1977, or George W. Bush in his 2005 inaugural speech?

ElvisL1ves
01-21-2005, 10:32 AM
The next question: Which president has done the most to institutionalize "faith-based initiatives" as part of government programs?

lno
01-21-2005, 10:41 AM
Here's a quiz: who mentioned "God" more often: Jimmy Carter in his inaugural speech in 1977, or George W. Bush in his 2005 inaugural speech?That'd be George W Bush.

Carter's 1977 inaugural address (http://watergate.info/aftermath/77-01-20_carter-inaugural-address.shtml) mentioned "God" precisely once, and that was in a direct quote from the Bible. "...and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)

Bush's 2005 inaugural address (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.transcript/index.html) mentioned "God" three times, once in a quote from Abraham Lincoln.

What do I win?

Bricker
01-21-2005, 11:01 AM
What do I win?

An appreciative nod. I should have asked which address quoted more from the Bible.

The next question: Which president has done the most to institutionalize "faith-based initiatives" as part of government programs?

In his inaugural address, the subject of this thread, I can find no references by either president.

Captain Lance Murdoch
01-21-2005, 11:11 AM
When I heard that Bush mentioned God three times in his inagural address, my first thought was WTF? Only three times? Did we reelect a queer-loving athiest?

But then I found out that he also mentioned the "maker," the Sermon on the Mount, the "truths of Sinai" (which I assume to be code for the Ten Commandments), faith, and the soul (twice). He even threw in a Koranic fig-leaf.

And all was right with the world again.

Liberal
01-21-2005, 11:15 AM
Bush's 2005 inaugural address (http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.transcript/index.html) mentioned "God" three times, once in a quote from Abraham Lincoln.Three times? You mean this whole pitting is about three times? According to the OP, "Every frickin' word was riddled with God." What are we now, perpetuating ignorance?

Liberal
01-21-2005, 11:18 AM
When I heard that Bush mentioned God three times in his inagural address, my first thought was WTF? Only three times? Did we reelect a queer-loving athiest?

But then I found out that he also mentioned the "maker," the Sermon on the Mount, the "truths of Sinai" (which I assume to be code for the Ten Commandments), faith, and the soul (twice). He even threw in a Koranic fig-leaf.

And all was right with the world again.Aside from God, Carter mentioned Micah, the Bible, and spirituality (from which he said our society is defined.) I never cease to be amazed by the cluelessness and duplicity of the left.

Loopydude
01-21-2005, 11:33 AM
Normally American heads of state quote Biblical passages at inaugurations and other such functions, and the quotes are, in general, so agreable to the senses of any moral or ethical individual, I see no reason to take offense.

Personally, I now want Bush to quote from the Bible as often, and in context as specifically, as his handlers dare allow. What motivates and informs the decisions of our President? Well, if it's his faith to a great degree, I really want to know all about it. The damage has been done as far as sensibilities are concerned, both at home and abroad, vis the whole "Separation of Church and State" technicality. Bush obviously doesn't care about those who dislike the idea that religiosity has crept into policy, so there's scant reason, at this juncture, to keep up the "uniter" charade any longer. Attitudes can't get much more polarized than they are now, so why not have some complete candor (for a change), and let us in on the master plan?

Let's encourage our President to be as open as he can be about his ties to the likes of Bob Jones, and Dr. James Dobson. Let's invite frank discussion of the resonance between the Bush world view, and that of the radical Christian Right. And then, by his actions, we can then trace the line of reasoning, the seeds of ideology that achieve fruition in policy. "By their fruits ye shall know them," yes? Christian Republicans, I want to know all about it. Care to witness a little more?

lno
01-21-2005, 11:34 AM
Three times? You mean this whole pitting is about three times? According to the OP, "Every frickin' word was riddled with God." What are we now, perpetuating ignorance?Oh, that's the exoteric meaning, yes. But if you read more carefully, you can discern the esoteric meaning, which is that everyone will get a crystal in the palm of their hand which will turn red on their thirtieth birthday.

I thought you would have realized that.

Liberal
01-21-2005, 11:43 AM
Oh, that's the exoteric meaning, yes. But if you read more carefully, you can discern the esoteric meaning, which is that everyone will get a crystal in the palm of their hand which will turn red on their thirtieth birthday.

I thought you would have realized that.I never get the memos.

lno
01-21-2005, 11:51 AM
Well, we did send a memo about wearing jeans today for casual Friday, but there was the whole exoteric/esoteric thing again, and...

ElvisL1ves
01-21-2005, 12:02 PM
In his inaugural address, the subject of this thread, I can find no references by either president.
And yet, somehow, a President's actions and policies matter, while a speech doesn't. "The subject of this thread" is the extent to which a president allows his particular brand of religion to direct his actions and policies.

But of course you know that, weaselboy. Care to answer the question as posed, now?

Liberal
01-21-2005, 12:09 PM
Yeah, Brick, damn. Can't you read? The title clearly asks, "What happened to the extent to which a president allows his particular brand of religion to direct his actions and policies?".

Bricker
01-21-2005, 12:15 PM
And yet, somehow, a President's actions and policies matter, while a speech doesn't. "The subject of this thread" is the extent to which a president allows his particular brand of religion to direct his actions and policies.

But of course you know that, weaselboy. Care to answer the question as posed, now?

Really? That's the subject?

What happened to the Presidential Inauguration?


I turned on MSNBC to watch some of the Inauguration. Instead, it seems, it was some kind of hidden Thursday mass I didn't know about. Every frickin' word was riddled with God. WTF is going on at the Whitehouse that turned it into a church house? Were past Inaugurations like this?


That is the subject of this thread. Please pay attention.

manhattan
01-21-2005, 12:31 PM
What you don't understand is that threads are like Supreme Court decisions. They mean exactly what Elvis wants them to mean in context of advancing his idea of justice.

ElvisL1ves
01-21-2005, 12:36 PM
WTF is going on at the Whitehouse that turned it into a church house?Please read again, more slowly this time. Feel free to move your lips if necessary. Then, perhaps you can address the question posed to you.

manny, lib, do you have anything useful to say? About anything, for that matter?

Bricker
01-21-2005, 12:36 PM
What you don't understand is that threads are like Supreme Court decisions. They mean exactly what Elvis wants them to mean in context of advancing his idea of justice.

Of course, I should have realized that a man who can make the Constitution mean anything he wishes, regardless of what it actually says, would not be daunted by a mere thread subject.

Freyr
01-21-2005, 12:41 PM
WTF? This would hold true for the electorate no matter what the change. If we elect someone trusting that their beliefs are one thing and they get up one day and they're something completely different, then yes the electorate has every reason to be upset. Hmmm, maybe that's why Kerry wasn't being inaugurated today, the electorate could never build any trust in what his beliefs were going to be from one day to the next.

The point I was trying to make, was that it's not so much religion that's being mentioned in the inaguration, but rather the Christian religion. The overtly Christian overtones of our C-in-C is especially disconcerting. If another religion, especially a non-abrahamic faith were to be used, the outrage and indignation from Christians, especially conservative Christians, would be deafening. I think this smells of hypocricy, it's all right if religion is mentioned by public officials, as long as it's their religion.

Freyr
01-21-2005, 12:44 PM
I don't believe they'd say it was unconstitutional.

You're probably right, but as I replied to Flickster, they'd be screaming bloody murder that it wasn't their religion being used in the speeches.

BMalion
01-21-2005, 01:16 PM
... If another religion, especially a non-abrahamic faith were to be used, the outrage and indignation from Christians, especially conservative Christians, would be deafening. ...their religion.


And you can prove this... how?

World Eater
01-21-2005, 01:27 PM
Is the best you guys can come up with is a weak "but he did it too"? (insert any dem)

The good 'ol Abu G defense.

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
01-21-2005, 01:49 PM
The real story is that security was breached!

News Link HERE (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i7268)

Man, them Al Qida dudes just keep gettin' taller & taller....

Captain Lance Murdoch
01-21-2005, 02:10 PM
Aside from God, Carter mentioned Micah, the Bible, and spirituality (from which he said our society is defined.) I never cease to be amazed by the cluelessness and duplicity of the left.

What duplicity? I never mentioned Carter nor said Bush was alone in this. In fact I think Carter made a big mistake by wearing his religion on his sleeve. To his credit, he has admitted as much. This is now the way things are. Want to be President? You'd better love the hell out of God and you'd better do it publicly.

ParentalAdvisory
01-21-2005, 02:30 PM
Three times? You mean this whole pitting is about three times? According to the OP, "Every frickin' word was riddled with God." What are we now, perpetuating ignorance?

I had stated earlier that I would be fair and say that it wasn't every other word. I was bitter. Basically, it wasn't just God that was mentioned. Also the use of "Lord" and "Amen", were mentioned by many. I know, "OMG!" right? It's just that this Inauguration seems to have made our local churches jealous, for having put on a better show for Jesus.

ElvisL1ves
01-21-2005, 02:52 PM
Bricker, we can take that as an acknowledgment that you do indeed refuse to consider the substance of Bush's governing approach. Why indeed should you, when you know how far wrong that is, and while you still think there are some cheap points in the wording of speeches. I'm sure you find yourself very convincing.

You're a weasel. Deal with it.

Bricker
01-21-2005, 03:36 PM
Bricker, we can take that as an acknowledgment that you do indeed refuse to consider the substance of Bush's governing approach. Why indeed should you, when you know how far wrong that is, and while you still think there are some cheap points in the wording of speeches. I'm sure you find yourself very convincing.

You're a weasel. Deal with it.

I responded in this thread to rebut accusations in this thread. NOw along come you and say, "Well, what about this OTHER stuff? Huh? Huh?"

Start a thread. Call it 'Bush's Overt Religiousity in Governance.' I'll play in it. But the point I was making HERE in THIS THREAD, ABOUT THE INAUGURATION, is not relevant to that point.

World Eater
01-21-2005, 03:42 PM
And your rebuttal was simply calling us out that he didn't literally say god every other word.

ElvisL1ves
01-21-2005, 04:12 PM
Thanks for confirming that you have nothing of substance to contribute here, just your usual reflexive partisanship, combined with your eager divertability into superficialities. We expect nothing better from you anymore.

PunditLisa
01-22-2005, 10:19 AM
I watched the inauguration as it was an historic event and my honor as an American to watch. I found it no more or less evocative of a church service than the other inaugurations I have witnessed throughout my life. They are solemn (and, okay, somnolent) occasions of state and in my experience, all solemn events of state are mindful of church. Perhaps it's because they are so rigidly formatted.

So, to answer the question in the OP, nothing has happened to the Presidential Inauguration. Aside from a few details (such as location) George W. Bush's inauguration was very similar to the inauguration of our first President George Washingon, which will be very similar to the inauguration of the final president of this union. That is the dichotomy of the inauguration. They are guaranteed to be boring, yet if have any appreciation of history and tradition, so fascinating.

Interesting tidbit I heard the other day (from the Diane Rheam show??): John F. Kennedy reportedly caused a great deal of consternation by refusing to wear a hat to his inauguration. He said he didn't look good in a hat. 150 years of protocol dictated that the president wear a hat. You have to wonder how many Tums his staff downed because of his decision to break that tradition. Can you imagine the angst it would cause the stiff shirts if the President decided to omit "God" from his inauguration speech?

Freyr
01-22-2005, 06:43 PM
And you can prove this... how?

Do you remember that "mountain out of a mole hill" the conservative Christians made a few years back? The army allowed Wiccans to openly practice their faith while on active duty. Conservative Christians had fits over that idea. They even went as far as to call for a boycott of military service, tho apparently the boycott never went anywhere.

You also might remember Jerry Falwell mentioning that pagans, among others, were partially responsible for the Sept. 11th attack. Here's a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=true)
that shows his comments.

If a member of a non-abrahmaic faith would be elected president, I think many Christians would be uncomfortable and the conversative Christians would red in the face with apoplexy.

Bricker
01-22-2005, 08:07 PM
And your rebuttal was simply calling us out that he didn't literally say god every other word.

No, my rebuttal was pointing out that this inauguration differed little from previous examples of the genre, as well as clarifying the hyperbole of the OP - not for me, but for others who have expressed grave discomfort with hyperbole.

BMalion
01-24-2005, 11:07 AM
Do you remember that "mountain out of a mole hill" the conservative Christians made a few years back? The army allowed Wiccans to openly practice their faith while on active duty. Conservative Christians had fits over that idea. They even went as far as to call for a boycott of military service, tho apparently the boycott never went anywhere.


No, I do not remember this.

It's easy to find one foaming-at-the-mouth pastor to hate just about everything. There's a church in my town who's pastor says that women who were pants are transvestites, he's a loon.


You also might remember Jerry Falwell mentioning that pagans, among others, were partially responsible for the Sept. 11th attack. Here's a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28620-2001Sep14&notFound=true)
that shows his comments.


Jerry falwell does not speak for all Christians, he is an embarrassment.


If a member of a non-abrahmaic faith would be elected president, I think many Christians would be uncomfortable and the conversative Christians would red in the face with apoplexy.


That's so obvious it hardly needs saying, I could just as easily say "Many Democrats would be uncomfortable with a Republican President"

BrotherCadfael
01-24-2005, 12:18 PM
Content aside, he's the most stupefyingly dull speaker I've ever heard. I could almost hear the attendees in the back rows of the platform saying, "For God's sake, shut up so we can start getting hammered."By any chance, did you happen to catch the keynote speech for at the Democratic convention in 1984? Man, did that guy blather on and on! People in the audience were actually doing the finger-across-the-throat "cut" sign as he started in on his second hour. When he finally said, "and, in conclusion", the audience stood up and cheered!

Later that week, the speaker appeared on Johnny Carson's show. Carson gave him a three-minute-forty-eight-second introduction by way of parodying the guy's speaking style. The audience was in stitches. So was the speaker, a guy by the name of Bill Clinton.

(I saw an abbreviated version of Carson's bit last night during the Carson tributes. Funny stuff.)

Mr. Moto
01-24-2005, 12:29 PM
By any chance, did you happen to catch the keynote speech for at the Democratic convention in 1984? Man, did that guy blather on and on! People in the audience were actually doing the finger-across-the-throat "cut" sign as he started in on his second hour. When he finally said, "and, in conclusion", the audience stood up and cheered!

Later that week, the speaker appeared on Johnny Carson's show. Carson gave him a three-minute-forty-eight-second introduction by way of parodying the guy's speaking style. The audience was in stitches. So was the speaker, a guy by the name of Bill Clinton.

(I saw an abbreviated version of Carson's bit last night during the Carson tributes. Funny stuff.)

Major nitpicks ahead. Sorry.

The keynote speaker at the DNC in 1984 was Mario Cuomo, and in 1988 it was Ann Richards.

Clinton in 1988 delivered the nominating speech for Mike Dukakis, the one since derided as "don't stop talking until tomorrow."

BrotherCadfael
01-24-2005, 12:31 PM
Major nitpicks ahead. Sorry.

The keynote speaker at the DNC in 1984 was Mario Cuomo, and in 1988 it was Ann Richards.

Clinton in 1988 delivered the nominating speech for Mike Dukakis, the one since derided as "don't stop talking until tomorrow."You are correct. My bad.

World Eater
01-24-2005, 12:34 PM
No, my rebuttal was pointing out that this inauguration differed little from previous examples of the genre, as well as clarifying the hyperbole of the OP - not for me, but for others who have expressed grave discomfort with hyperbole.

What kind of argument is this? So then future inaugurations should shut the fuck up about god. If it's a tradition then let's break the fucker.

Bricker
01-24-2005, 01:27 PM
What kind of argument is this? So then future inaugurations should shut the fuck up about god. If it's a tradition then let's break the fucker.

Well, the thread is titled, "What happened to the Presidential Inauguration?" This suggests a change, as opposed to a title like, say, "Presidential Inauguration - Same Old God Stuff!" It is thus relevant to point out that there has been no real change... that nothing "happened." I agree that this doesn't prove the value of the practice, of course; it could be that the tradition has always been ill-advised.

Of course, I don't agree with that either, but that's another subject.

World Eater
01-24-2005, 02:00 PM
Well, the thread is titled, "What happened to the Presidential Inauguration?" This suggests a change, as opposed to a title like, say, "Presidential Inauguration - Same Old God Stuff!" It is thus relevant to point out that there has been no real change... that nothing "happened."

People usually don't say "Clinton got a blowjob" to make us aware that politicians have and always will be assholes either, I feel that's the same case here. In this case I understand you bringing this to attention, and I agree with your point.

I agree that this doesn't prove the value of the practice, of course; it could be that the tradition has always been ill-advised.

Of course, I don't agree with that either, but that's another subject.

I don't think either of us want to go there.


:p

Liberal
01-24-2005, 02:06 PM
Notably, no one has started a Pit thread titled, "What happened to Hillary Clinton?". She gave a speech (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF) the day before the inauguration, invoking God no less than six times, declaring her support for faith-based initiatives, and revealing that she is "a praying person". She said that people of faith should be allowed to "live out their faith in the public square".

World Eater
01-24-2005, 02:13 PM
Notably, no one has started a Pit thread titled, "What happened to Hillary Clinton?". She gave a speech (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF) the day before the inauguration, invoking God no less than six times, declaring her support for faith-based initiatives, and revealing that she is "a praying person". She said that people of faith should be allowed to "live out their faith in the public square".

Well I'm covered. I never liked the little carpet bagging slimball. Add her to the "STFU about god" list.

Anyone else to add Lib?

Is it possible for people to get worked up about something without having to mention every single instance of it throughout recorded history?

Liberal
01-24-2005, 02:26 PM
Here's what Slick Hillary is going to do. She's going to cleanse the Democratic Party of its cacophonous and hysterical special interests. She's going to soften the rhetoric about wealth distribution schemes. She's going to mollify the Black church majority that opposes gay marriage. And she's going to disavow those who bash people of faith as extremists. She's going to wrestle away from Bush some of the most important and classic liberal buzzwords, like "freedom". She's going to profess her allegiance to America, and her suspicions of the UN. She's going to do all this because of two things: (1) she wants to run for president, and (2) she's smart.

World Eater
01-24-2005, 02:37 PM
No way mon, ain't happening.

Maeglin
01-24-2005, 03:06 PM
Sounds like you can't wait to vote for her, Lib!

kaylasdad99
01-24-2005, 08:13 PM
Interesting tidbit I heard the other day (from the Diane Rheam show??): John F. Kennedy reportedly caused a great deal of consternation by refusing to wear a hat to his inauguration. He said he didn't look good in a hat. 150 years of protocol dictated that the president wear a hat. You have to wonder how many Tums his staff downed because of his decision to break that tradition.Somebody needs to look at Snopes before she shoots her mouth off on the radio. (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/jfkhat.htm)