Seems to me that there is convinient memory loss because Obama gets a free pass on EVERYTHING… after all, he is “The One” even to those who morally oppaosed them and supported Hillary, right?

Ah the beliefs we sacrifice to simply be on the wining band wagon.

Jesus might have taken the metro in those limited areas of the nation where it was available.

But even there, when it came time to run to the grocery store and attempt to bring home a trunk full of groceries to feed the family, he would have drove himself.

You asked:

“What’s the predominant purpose of the invocation?”

The purpose is to reassure those of us who believe in God that God has a place in our government. If Barack had run as an atheist, then I guess most of us would not have had a problem if he removed the invocation or allowed an atheist to give the invocation.

But Barack did run as a Christian.

It’s Barack’s inauguration and you atheists were unsuccessful in getting one of yours elected.

Believe me that the extreme right wing of Christians is just as upset about Rick Warren being given this honor as you are. You only had to tune into Christian radio long before the selection was announced to hear the voices criticizing him for being too liberal.

The Court looks to see if there is a legitimate secular purpose to the religious speech at issue- like a historical purpose in the example of the 10 Commandments. (It’s a very, very case-by-case analysis, that depends on how you frame the totality of the circumstances.)

So, is this speech emphasizing and exalting a religious message, or is there a secular implication of having an invocation? What’s the predominant purpose of the invocation? Do we look to its purpose in isolation or in context with the secular elements of the inauguration as a whole? I keep asking you guys why we have to have an invocation and how it fits in between the music, the speeches, etc, but since no one has given an answer other than “we always do and the majority of Americans aren’t atheists,” I can’t answer your question. It seems like everyone’s saying that we’re doing it because we’re mostly Christian- but that gives the invocation in isolation a predominantly religious purpose and that’s not right. In context, it might be trickier, but you could still make the argument that it violates the predominant purpose test.

Maybe it’s just a nod to the religion of the President-elect as an individual (and here we can return to the fun problem of was he even the gov’t when he chose Warren? Can his decision when he’s not-gov’t change into a gov’t decision? Is an inauguration actually gov’t speech? I have no idea, but if it isn’t, I’m wasting a lot of time here!) and his supporters. Then, the invocation is ephemeral and arguably not really made with the predominant purpose of exalting a religious message, but rather for the secular purpose of glad-handing all you religious folks who voted for him. Which is kinda cynical.

It’s like in the actual Supreme Court- Moses is up there, but he’s in context with secular law givers, and the purpose of him being there with his tablets is about the laws that he wrote down- in context, with the secular elements, it’s cool and not establishing anything, due to it’s predominantly secular purpose. Here, I don’t know the context, I don’t know the predominant purpose, but I could argue it either way once we have the test established.

Actually Jesus is not my God, he is my Rabbi. I am uncertain as to whether or not he is/was God, but I do know that I love him profoundly.

And it is not my God who is non-driving. Yours is the one that needs a chauffeur.

As to whether or not Rick Warren deserves to give the invocation? Seems the minority on one issue do not want him given that honor because on that issue he represents the majority viewpoint.

As to the establishment cause? If you are upset about an invocation even being included I’d bet you’re furious about our money having “In God we trust” engraved upon it.

Having an invocation is, quite frankly, catering to the majority who believe that God does care about us.

As for your second point. Dude. “No one is saying our viewpoints should prevail because they are the minority, nor should the majority be silenced because the minority is in disagreement.”

You said, “That if 10 people sitting in a room are asked for their opinion, the one dissenting voice should be allowed equal time to put forth his/her minority viewpoint as the other 9 put together.”

No, but I will grant you I was unclear. The marketplace of ideas doesn’t work like that. It works like a regular market. It’s not a formula; it works like if 10 people in a room have 2 opinions (9 to 1), it means that the 9 guys can’t tell the one guy he’s not allowed to speak entirely, they can’t punish him for his thoughts, and he should be allowed an opportunity to put his ideas into the stream of things. Does it mean everyone gets equal time? No. Does it mean that you can’t throw me in jail for standing on the street corner and proclaiming the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Yup. Does it mean I get to have your church to do it in? No. Does it mean you have to give me equal time? No, that’s up to me, to try and get my message out there. Think of it like antitrust law- the Sherman Act is only there to protect antitrust injuries. The Sherman Act does not protect competitive injuries- injuries you got because you just were a bad business, the demand wasn’t there, you didn’t make enough units, you didn’t advertise enough, etc. It protects against price fixing, horizontal restraints on trade, boycotts, monopolization- antitrust injuries that go against “the rules of open, free and fair competition” that serve to hide information and keep people from actually competing. Similar idea with the First Amendment. The Sherman Act doesn’t save a business from competing, but rather enables it to fully compete. The First Amendment doesn’t give you an equal amount of time at the mike, but rather, provides the protection so you can go and try and get that time for yourself.

But that’s really for private speech; our issue here is, I think first, is the invocation government speech or is it private speech? Because here, we’ve past the “marketplace of ideas” and found a winner, which would be Warren. He won! He gets to give an invocation.

If it’s private speech, then it really doesn’t matter if I disagree or you disagree or anyone is offended, because it’s protected under the 1st amendment as mere advocacy of an abstract idea. Under RAV, advocacy is protected, even if the majority finds it offensive. You have the right to open your mouth.

If it’s government speech, well, that’s a different matter. Gov’t speech doesn’t have to be, and shouldn’t be content neutral- what would be the point of political parties otherwise? However, here, I think it’s different because we have speech sitting very close to the Establishment Clause. (Or is it? Is Obama President at the time of the invocation? Or is he still a Senator? If he’s not, this could be moot. That’s a fun problem, actually. He chose Warren when he was just a Senator. He’s still really just a Senator. Not even. So, if he’s not the POTUS yet, can his choice actually constitute gov’t speech? And if not, does it turn into gov’t speech at the inauguration? Can one Senator’s choice violate the Establishment Clause, or since he’s just 1/100, can that not really do it? That should be a totality of the circumstances analysis, and I could get lost in that problem…)

That means we’ve stepped away from the marketplace of ideas to the government picking the message of the speech. Is the government speech establishing a religion? Is the government speech endorsing religion? I think that this is like that Summum case (no decision yet as far as I am aware, so I have no official answer for you, littledavid). There, there was a blending of private and gov’t speech, as I think arguably Warren’s speech is. It’s possibly endorsed by the gov’t, it’s got a high degree of gov’t involvement, we’re brushing up against the Establishment Clause…except there’s no opportunity for this to be a public forum, like a public park is. Is the acceptance of Warren’s invocation an endorsement of religion? I’m not sure that it is; I think, like the Summum case, the gov’t has a right to control and choose its message, but it’s tricky because it’s so close to the Establishment Clause and because it’s a gov’t choice of a particular subset of a religious message.

I think that it’s just not a good idea to tie religion of any sort into an inauguration. I also think that, well, Obama’s not Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or anything else, and eventually, you hit a logistical limit. However, not only is there a limit to what can be included, there’s a limit to what can be excluded. I don’t think that including a pre-chosen religious message as part of the celebration is a good idea, and I think that it could violate the Establishment Clause, unless arguably, he’s not the gov’t yet. He’s just a guy about to be President, and as such, it’s just a guy giving a talk before he becomes the gov’t, and it’s protected (not from jerks like me, but rather, protected in the sense that he can legally give the invocation).

I could also get lost in the idea of temporary gov’t speech versus permanent gov’t speech. Arguably, this is temporary. We’ll forget about it by Jan. 21. Warren who? I barely remember the guy’s name right now, I’m more interested in the legal issues now. Where perhaps we might start to worry is permanent gov’t speech, which is more likely to violate the Establishment Clause or the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, though, I think we all just want to b**ch and moan about something. I mean, I know I do.

I also know I’m tired of talking about the law when I’m supposed to be on winter break. (Shaddup, MB.)I also realize that I keep taking winding turns in this argument and end up just lost in the cornmaze of it all, so, um, the end.

I am going to attempt to make two points.

First, you commented:

“My God would also have a driver, so screw all your “What Would Jesus Drive?” bumper stickers.”

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, so I doubt he would in the present day have a chauffeur. Perhaps he would on occasion allow someone else to drive.

Second point:

You almost seem to point that minority voices should be allowed equal time at the microphone and majority voices should be squelched. That if 10 people sitting in a room are asked for their opinion, the one dissenting voice should be allowed equal time to put forth his/her minority viewpoint as the other 9 put together.

If there is going to be an invocation, must each and every minority viewpoint be allowed equal time at the microphone?

OK, 48 hours after we started (and some were still displeased their voice was not heard) we finally finished the invocation and we were allowed to get to the rest of the inauguration…

Actually, we’re pretty easy to please. No God of any flavor in the government, no government in the God/religious activities of any flavor. No one is saying our viewpoints should prevail because they are the minority, nor should the majority be silenced because the minority is in disagreement. The issue is, why is religion in an inauguration? Because I seriously doubt that God actually cares who is President of the US. And if he does, does he care about all countries and their leaders? What happens if one leader starts a war with another one and God chose both leaders? Just the ones with money? What if God doesn’t like the President, but likes the country? And that implies that God doesn’t like some countries, and also that God recognizes geo-political borders, and frankly, if I were to believe in a God, my God would be above such petty disputes, figuratively and literally, and love all people, and not give a damn what country they were in, where the British drew lines on a map, or what job they had. (My God would also have a driver, so screw all your “What Would Jesus Drive?” bumper stickers.)

Also, just because someone is in the majority doesn’t make them correct, or make taking action based on “Most Americans believe/do XYZ” the rationale, correct thing to do. Wikipedia “1942 Japanese-Americans” if you don’t believe me. (Is that a weird version of Godwin’s law? Sorry, I didn’t mean to if it is…)Indeed, our civil liberties and the like are there to protect the minority from the majority.

Actually (MB, watch this), my Con Law professor had an interesting point to make about the first amendment and I think it can be analogized here- The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect speech that the majority loves, or by extension, the bill of rights/related laws don’t exist to protect that which the majority has accepted. Such activities and speech have protection inherent from their acceptance by the majority. Such laws exist to protect the speech the majority doesn’t believe; not because the speech is righter, or because it will become the majority one day, but because we still like to pretend in this country that someone in the minority can still express an opinion without the fear of majority oppression. The laws exist to protect minority speech because the majority has no real incentive to do so, and because such churning of ideas is vital to the marketplace of ideas, oh, screw it, Oliver Wendell Holmes said it better. “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition…But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas…that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.” Abrams v. United States.)

Ok, so, see, point being, your argument that I should stfu and deal because I’m not in the majority is like, totally counter to the a key reason that we have, you know, a Constitution.

Now, the question remaining is, is the fact that someone’s going to be offended by speech no matter the topic something that should be accepted when picking an invocation speaker at inauguration? And if so, what? We pick based on POTUS’ religion, which seems fair enough, I guess, being that it is his inauguration. Except it’s kind of NOT, because he was actually elected democratically this go round. SO, since this is government endorsed speech, kinda sorta maybe, why, I ask again, is religion even being brought into government? You can be religious and be in government, and religion can guide the decisions in gov’t of the individual, but government cannot itself be religious or endorse religion, and I guess all I’m asking is why do we need an invocation, other than the fact that most people believe in God (although I would guess that not most people believe in Warren’s god)? Obama can go and have his prayers or whatnot, but why do they have to be part of the official celebration?

And I guess I still don’t get where this fits in between Oprah and whatever musical acts are slated? If God is so important to an inauguration, why does he have to be scheduled in? Show some respect and give the guy a day! If God is so important, shouldn’t He get the whole inauguration? Why does God have to be trotted out and presented as part of what is essentially the handing over of power, an official recognition of victory? Did God win the electoral college? I doubt it, because that would mean that God picks favorites, and I don’t think that’s how it works. (For the record though, yes, God is a Phillies fan. There is no other explanation. Then again, what just and loving God wouldn’t be a Phillies fan? )

Now, the majority of Americans are against gay marriage as proven time and again when the issue is put to the vote. Even in ultra liberal California Proposition 8 passed.

If one confined the vote to only the religious, such measures would pass by even larger majorities.

What was Barack to do? Offend the majority by excluding the invocation from his inaugural ceremony? Include it but have it given by someone who thinks gay marriage is just dandy?

You atheists are too hard to please.

MB – dude, you crack me up.

Genevieve – I am with you, why can’t we have a secular ethics leader speak at the inauguration? Western culture is held back by the misapprehension that ethics are derived from faith/religion. That mindset blocks an opportunity for ethics to be taught in a secular fashion by our society in every venue; and for various religions to back it up if community members are in those religions.

A ethical society, one where all members of the community know right from wrong, regardless of their differing faiths or even the absence of faith, is a much safer and more reasonable society. Modern Japan is one example of this, and I know it is not perfect, but they sure have a lot fewer criminal acts than we do.

yeah, I fail at this whole 2L thang.

You do seem to lack the requisite bitterness and self-importance (when you hit 3L, it’s just the bitterness). However, if you want to keep up appearances in the future, here’s the neverfail 2L line – “Whatever. Let’s get drunk and . . . ” [unfinished to keep in compliance with the G-rated aspirations of this blog].

~

But back to the subject at hand: Where’s David Duke? Or Strom Thurmond’s corpse? Don’t we want all points of view represented?

If Proposition 8 wasn’t a current issue causing additional sensitivity on this issue, I’m not sure the outcry would be so much. The fact is that people are still dealing from that blow, and are outraged that Obama could include a man who campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8 in his inaugural ceremony.

I understand the need for inclusiveness. I think Warren has done some very good things for contemporary Christianity, but I also think this was the wrong political environment for him to have been invited.

Additional comments here and I recommend reading this.

yeah, I fail at this whole 2L thang.

~

Sorry, V. Scott made me do it.

Why, and this is an honest question, no snark intended, does there have to be an invocation led by a Christian preacher? Did I miss the part where you need the blessing of the Pope on your coronation? Honest question. Now, I’m an atheist and therefore really don’t give a damn about this Warren character, but it’s an inauguration. I think the real issue is, what part of this requires prayer or religion of any flavor? I’m not saying that preachers or religious leaders should be disallowed; I’m not sure why they’re giving, like, opening prayers and the like. Why is an invocation necessary? Other than the fact that there’s usually one, or Obama wants him there? Because those reasons aren’t really reasons. I wouldn’t get upset or riled up or whatever until, like, something worth getting upset about actually happens. Like if these viewpoints suddenly start infecting this administration. Until then, seriously, yawn.

Unless I’ve missed something. I have been in exams the past two weeks, so it’s entirely possible.

Anything else and it is horribly disappointing and a potentially disastrous mistake.

If Democrats are going to screen every Christian preacher, and make sure they all agree with each and every thing he or she ever said, you can go ahead and schedule the invocation for 2012.

This is a made-up controversy, and this calculated unleashing of faux outrage is designed to put certain issues front and center.

So once again we can’t fix the economy or health care or Iraq or any of the issues important to ALL of us because we’re too busy yelling at each other about gay marriage and abortion.

It’s time to stop falling into this Karl Rove trap, and move on.

“…Let’s look for a moment at what an invocation is. It’s that moment when the walls between us are supposed to melt, when we move beyond the mind and surrender our hearts into the hands of God. It’s a prayer that we make as a nation, asking that God’s hand be upon us, that He forgive us our errors, and that He bless our new President and his administration.

So having one of the more judgmental people in the ministerial world deliver the invocation seems odd to me, and extraordinarily cynical. Rick Warren has supported what would be the first legislation ever passed in the United States to specifically limit the rights of a group of American citizens. What does he bring to the table at the Inauguration other than a cynically calculated wink in the direction of right-wing evangelicals? That kind of motivation, and the name Barack Obama, are supposed to be oxymoronic….aren’t they?” And then I liked one of the responses to her post: “I would recommend that those spiritualists who take the Book of Leviticus as the literal word of God on the abomination of homosexuality also avoid shrimp cocktails and lobster over the holiday season and beyond, or you too will shall be an abomination. Look it up.”

We didn’t need this inappropriate choice. There are so many others who would have done a fine job. And we could have kept our eye on the ball (all of our problems) rather getting caught up talking about his poor judgment in selecting this man.

I had to do a double take after reading that one. Did you look at that sentence before hitting “Post Comment” Lynda? If someone is looking to be entirely inclusive, how is it that anyone would have no place in being included? I am hardly one to defend Barack Obama, but selecting Rick Warren as a speaker suggests more to me about his willingness to be inclusive than someone who supports Obama’s views.

Mr. Young, I would suggest to you that you are either here to yank our chains, or you are more delusional that I originally thought.

Traditional moral values? Whose?

I don’t subscribe to your values of deceit and thievery (you know, that whole Bush thing). I would guess that you think that religion means only Christians of the strip you believe in. How can we live that lifestyle if we find the church to be hypocritical?

This is the mainstream view and mainstream evangelicals such as Rick Warren support this. Just don’t call it marriage and the vast majority are fine excepty for the radical Righ-Wingers and radical Left-Wing gay rights folks.

If you can not find some form of fellowship within the Warren group you are going to have some difficulty in maintaining a majority.

But speaking of the hilariously absurd, here’s a couple of bits from Rick Warren’s “ministry toolbox”:

Submission does not mean women are under the authority of men in general. I love the King James Version’s rendition of Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.” Guess what? Wives aren’t asked to submit to anyone else’s husband! Just their own!

[ . . . ]

My wife is also an ally in this battle, and you need yours as well. Sherry set “locks” on my computer, and I do not know the password. This means I am blocked from most pornographic sites because my wife’s settings recognize them as such. I also — and, yes, this was embarrassing — handed my wife a list of Internet addresses for the pornographic sites I tended to visit.

She created specific blocks for them, so I can no longer access them. Once again, this eliminated a lot of my temptation. I now feel comfortable using my own computer, but nervous when I use an unprotected computer. I’m glad my wife established these blocks.

No wonder he’s so desperate to exercise authority over someone else.

An even better choice would be the small time preacher that actually preached Jesus and never made a dime by doing it.

However such a preacher’s name, with only a few exceptions, would not be acceptable to most of us. Chances are such a preacher would take the opportunity to encourage us to follow Jesus, and that would not be a politically wise move.

…guh?

What will it take to make you happy? Must we have an avowed atheist give the invocation?

Personally, I’m always suspicious of people pushing methods to facilitate sexual promiscuity. Why can’t people like Fran stay here and work to create programs that teach people that practicing traditional moral values virtually guarantee that you won’t get AIDS? You know: abstinence or monogamy? Why do people like her work to promote barnyard sexual values when we all know that the biggest predictor of childhood poverty in America is having teenage parents? I guess if there were more responsibility in the world, Liberals would be out of business.

The more objective side feels that Obama is in a tough position on who to choose on this. I think that any religious figure is going to have someone upset with their views, whether they be concerning gay rights or life or how strong or weak they may be viewed on those issues.

This could just be a token bit of outreach to the right who would throw a fit were Obama to choose someone like Wright or that might be a closer fit to his political views. I certainly don’t think that this is Obama showing how he’s going to govern in regards to issues for the LBGT movement, I think it’s just a bit of hedging his bets, a willingness to weather the brief storm that this one time event creates, and then come out and do what he feels he was elected to do.

More than I expected. About all we’ll get.