In his article, “Obama’s Inaugural Save”, Derrick Jackson discusses Obama’s choice to pick Gene Robinson to give a prayer at the pre-inauguration celebration. He thinks it was a great and necessary decision on the part of Obama because it is an inclusive choice. Not only will this pick help placate some of the people upset with Warren’s invitation, it will also lead to an inclusive prayer. He was angered by Franklin Graham’s praying “in the name of the Father and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ” at the 2001 inauguration. Jackson thinks any prayer which focuses on one religion is infringing on the separation of church and state. Because of this, any prayer in a government sponsored event should have a vague if existent reference to religion. He is happy with Robinson’s selection as the bishop agrees with this sentiment and will pray to “the God of our many understandings.”
I think that in this situation, it should be a personal decision by the president-elect. I do not think a prayer at an inauguration qualifies as violating the establishment clause. The reason for its inclusion in the Constitution was to avoid the situation which Britain faced with a national religion. This national religion was forced upon the citizens. One prayer at an inauguration does not force anything upon our citizens and will win no converts. The government and now president Obama had no goal to convert watchers to their preferred religion. If a president elect chose a Muslim or Jewish to give a prayer, my opinion would be the same. I would still think the constitutional right to not have the government sponsor a religion was being upheld.
Wald & Calhoun Brown discusses the 59% of America who say religion is very important to them. I also think this group should not get upset about any inaugural prayers. Here, I agree with Jackson and Robinson who doubt the prayer’s ability to "save" the viewer. The bottom line is that the establishment clause was made and should remain a protection against serious attempts to nationalize a religion by the government. We should not worry about trivial questions such as this.
Posts
1 comment:
Adam brings up some interesting points in this post. Based on the article, his depiction of Jackson's views are very accurate and well represented. I agree with the points Adam makes about an established religion and the intent of the founders for separation. Jackson takes the position that any favoritism towards a specific religion goes against the constitution and also offends a large part of the population. I think that Obama's move to have Robinson pray was primarily diplomatic, and that he hopes to show his tolerance of people from all backgrounds in his administration, much the way he did in selecting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. It is important to note that while Wald & Calhoun-Brown do mention that 59% of Americans believe religion is important to them, they do not single out a particular religion in this statistic. This means that of the 60%, a significant portion of them may hold beliefs other than Christianity, which creates the need for such religious allowances as Robinson makes.
Also, I find it commendable that Obama's administration has supported America's religious pluralism by having both Islamic and Jewish prayers presented as part of the Inaugural festivities.
Post a Comment