Miscellanea Agnostica

The Washington Post reports that the widely-derided-by-religionazis Michael Newdow — backed by groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation — is suing in federal court to keep two pastors off the podium when Barack Obama is sworn into office as president, and to keep him from having to say “so help me God” at the end of his oath:

A group of atheists, led by a California man known for challenging “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, plan to file a lawsuit today to bar prayer at the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama.

Michael A. Newdow, 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists sued Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., several officials in charge of inaugural festivities and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery and pastor Rick Warren.

Somehow, America’s religious folk are not clear on this, and need to be reminded (as I blogged earlier): They aren’t going to see a bishop crown a king in a medieval rite, they’re going to see a US president sworn into office. In case anyone sees no problem with that practice, keep in mind that the author of the First Amendment, James Madison, said that the hiring of Congressional chaplains violated that Amendment (all spellings original):

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.

So … if the man who wrote the First Amendment didn’t think Congressional sessions should be opened by chaplains, what the hell business does a president have being sworn in under the watchful eye of clergy?

Any questions from the so-called “strict constructionists” out there (who are almost universally all of the Religious Right persuasion), who always seem to foam at the mouth over what they claim is “the Founders’ intent”? You now know what the Founders’ intent was — from the pen of that very Founder who wrote the First Amendment! Read it, learn it, understand it.

P.S. Did I mention that “so help me God” is also not part of the Constitutional oath that presidents swear to? Oh, that’s right … it’s OK to add stuff into the Constitution, so long as it’s God you’re adding in. There’s a word for that, you know … hypocrisy!)

Barack Obama’s inauguration, about a month from now, will feature an invocation by evangelical Christian Bible-thumper Rick Warren — pastor of the famed Saddleback megachurch and millionaire author of those cloying “purpose-driven” books — about whom I’ve blogged before. Warren is supposed to be a member of the “new” evangelicals … interested in social-justice causes and all of that, theoretically closer to the political Left than more traditional evangelicals. But let’s be honest about this; when it comes to the “big-ticket” issues so near and dear to the hearts of Protestant evangelicals — abortion, gays, etc. — Warren is a slave to the traditional dogma. Any difference he has with other evangelicals is strictly cosmetic.

Having an evangelical like Warren has, therefore, outraged Obama’s supporters on the Left, as one would logically expect:

No backing down whatsoever today from President-elect Barack Obama in the face of some strong criticism from gay and lesbian interests over his choice of Saddleback’s Rick Warren for the invocation speaker at the Jan. 20 inauguration.

As pastor of his mega-church in Lake Forest, Warren was an outspoken proponent of Prop. 8, which passed on Nov. 4 and overturns a court decision allowing same-sex marriage in California.

I wonder when the Left is finally going to figure out that Obama is not really their guy as much as they believe … they nominated and elected him primarily because he had not voted to approve the Iraq War (not possible for him, since he wasn’t in Congress then) … but this did not really make him “their” man, and he’s showing his true colors.

But the question that most nags at me is a bigger one: Why in hell is it even necessary to have a preacher presiding over the inauguration in the first place? Back in the Middle Ages, monarchs were crowned by popes or other bishops, in ecclesiastical rites that in some cases took all day. But I’ve got news for America — our president is not a king; his office is not a sacred one; he is, rather, the chief executive of a completely-secular government. It is not necessary for him to be inaugurated under the watch of the clergy.

Really, it’s not.

So … why the hell is Obama doing it? Could it be because too many Americans are not yet mature enough to let their new president take office without having God paraded around at the same time? Isn’t it time for Americans to grow up?

It’s unfortunate that Obama has chosen to do this; he could have displayed a great deal of courage by refusing to make his inauguration into a medieval sacerdotal rite. But I guess he just was not up to it. Pity.

At long last, there is at least one national voice that’s as fed up as I am over the way the presidential candidates are bowing and scraping at the altar of American Hyperreligiosity. Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker offers this, in the wake of Pastor Rick Warren’s attempt to abscond with the 2008 election in the name of rabid Christian evangelicals:

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American. …

For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won. …

The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.

The loser was America.

Parker includes some kindly comments about Warren and understates his obvious theocratic bent, as if she doesn’t want to be too harsh on him … I’d have preferred she call him what he is: A transparent opportunist trying to leverage this election so as to give evangelicals even more political power than they already have, regardless of who wins. Nevertheless, she wraps up with an excellent point:

For the moment, let’s set aside our curiosity about what Jesus might do in a given circumstance and wonder what our Founding Fathers would have done at Saddleback Church. What would have happened to Thomas Jefferson if he had responded as he wrote in 1781:

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Would the crowd at Saddleback have applauded and nodded through that one? Doubtful.

By today’s new standard of pulpits in the public square, Jefferson — the great advocate for religious freedom in America — would have lost.

It’s ironic, of course, that the Religious Right™ generally claims to be obedient to the Founding Fathers and their “intent” — even though the Founding Fathers were not evangelicals like themselves … mostly because modern Protestant evangelical Christianity didn’t exist in the late 18th century, and also because most of the Founding Fathers were actually freethinkers, not religionists.

Pastor Rick Warren, multi-millionaire author of the insipid and trite “Purpose-Driven Life” book franchise, is hosting both presidential candidates for some kind of forum (it’s not a debate, exactly … I have no idea what it is … I’m not even sure they know what it is). Warren is setting himself up as the nation’s pastor, with the tacit approval of the media, as seen for example in this Reuters story:

It’s the evangelicals, stupid.

Commentators who have written off U.S. evangelical voters as a relic of the Bush era should take notice of this Saturday’s “Civil Forum on the Presidency” moderated by famed evangelical mega pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama and his Republican rival John McCain will each spend about an hour taking questions from Warren and will only share the stage briefly. …

Evangelicals account for one in four U.S. adults making them the country’s largest religious group and a key battleground faith.

Other media outlets are running stories about Warren becoming something of a religious “elder statesman” in the US. Supposedly Warren is opening the door for the candidates to introduce themselves to evangelical Christians, who largely distrust McCain as being not-religious-enough, and consider Obama too liberal for their taste.

This marks a new strategy by the Religious Right™. Previously their tactic had been to select one political party — in 1980 they chose the Republicans — to promote and push into power, then use that party to impose their religiosity on the country and build a theocracy. With the collapse of the GOP, Warren has modified this tactic, to embrace both parties’ candidates. No matter who wins in November, Warren will be able to take credit for that victory in the name of America’s evangelicals, and force the winner to adopt the evangelicals’ agenda.

I must say it’s clever, and Warren is not without critics among the Religious Right™, but I know the rise of dominionism when I see it … and now you do, too.