I long for a day in which the idea of an official prayer in congress causes a stir. People who pray: Don’t you believe that you can pray any damn old place and any damn old time, and your god can hear you? Prayer shouldn’t be a fucking show. Praying to your god should include an amount equalling exactly zero of “Hey! Look at me!”
It’s not official, but there are whole books quoting some of the Founders’ aversion to creating an official religion, so it’s hardly one person’s offhand position.
It’s also true that “ceremonial deism” is so established - and blessed by the Supreme Court - that the political power of Christianity overrides all attempts to create a separation. Congress and the President also commonly swear their oaths of office on Bibles - and the use of Korans by Moslems is immediately demonized by the religious right, no matter that a religious tract is a religious tract and should have no place in government regardless of denomination. Deism is ugly and wrong and seemingly unchallengeable.
The words “separation of church and state” might not be official, but the no establishment of religion is as official as it can get. And it still gets blatantly ignored.
I hope, and might even be correct in that hope, that this pastor was deliberately ridiculing the blatantly unConstitutional activity he was engaged in.
This seems to be one of those news incidents that has something to offend everyone.
The separation-of-church-and-state atheists are upset that Congress is opening with a prayer.
Christians are upset that the pastor referred to Brahma as god and that this god was to be worshipped by multiple faiths.
Polytheists are upset that the god is referred to as monotheistic.
Grammar folks are upset that he said “Awomen” when Amen has nothing to do with gender.
All of which highlight why religion and state should be separate. Combining them, even with the best of intentions, diminishes both. There’s a reason why so many of the leading church-state separation cases involve religious plaintiffs suing the government to keep religion out of government-funded endeavors.
Maybe, but awomen is like deciding it should be womenstruation or womental issues or abdowomen. It’s stupid and indefensible unless he was aiming for “making fun of Christian tradition” or “making fun of a language”.
Do women go to a parqueen lot? Are straight women sheterosexual?
I don’t know why you’re asking me those questions. I have not advocated for or defended such wordplay. My point is strictly that the real story here is, or at least ought to be, that there was a state-sponsored display of worship in such a setting at all. When people feel compelled to mix their politics with their religion, this sort of nonsense is bound to happen.
ETA: And I wouldn’t rule out ordinary (okay, exceptional) stupidity as a possible cause.
The questions weren’t directed at you specifically.
It’s fun being alive in a time where reality outweirds the satire sites.
Are we sure it wasn’t supposed to be a joke? It’s fairly normal to end a speech with a laugh.
Or an atheist.
Agreed x1000.
And somehow that gets twisted into something completely different.
And it was a bad idea then.
Right wingers are upset because a Democrat does something totally meaningless and insignificant. Color me shocked.
“We shall open this session of congress with a blood sacrifice to the Great Feathered Serpent, Quetzlcoatl!”
It basically was. A joke with a purpose but still just a bit of levity. Won’t stop anyone from their recreational pearl-clutching. From The Hill:
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said Monday he did not expect to be mocked for concluding a prayer to open the new session of Congress with “amen and awoman.”
Cleaver told the Kansas City Star the “lighthearted pun” was made in an effort to recognize “the record number of women who will be representing the American people in Congress during this term as well as in recognition of the first female chaplain of the House of Representatives, whose service commenced this week.”
Less of an appeal to tradition and more of an indication that the folks who actually drafted the Establishment Clause did not intend it to mean a strict separation of Church and State. An Original Intent argument.
Why do you believe Imam’s haven’t been invited to give the opening invocation?
