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.
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.
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.
And you can prove this… how?
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.
The real story is that security was breached!
Man, them Al Qida dudes just keep gettin’ taller & taller…
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.
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.
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.
And your rebuttal was simply calling us out that he didn’t literally say god every other word.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Jerry falwell does not speak for all Christians, he is an embarrassment.
That’s so obvious it hardly needs saying, I could just as easily say “Many Democrats would be uncomfortable with a Republican President”
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.”
You are correct. My bad.
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.