cubbi ([info]cubbi) wrote,
@ 2009-01-22 14:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: busy

obligatory post about Obama's inauguration
I didn't care to watch it, knowing that it will have priests in it (how ridiculous is that?), that Obama is president effective 12:00 noon regardless of what transcribes at the ceremony (although too bad I missed the "president to the United States faithfully" mess-up), and that it will have the stupid "So help me God", which, by the way, was never used by U.S. presidents until well into the 20th century, with the single exception of Chester Arthur; I fully support the lawsuit that attempted to bar Roberts from instructing the president to say that.

I liked this blog on the subject, and, in particular, this australian's comment:
"It seems that american political life has a parasite called overt christian god talk and another called sickening patriotism and it seems to be the price that all political figures no matter how progressive have to pay."


(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]freakylynx
2009-01-22 08:01 pm UTC (link)
If it makes you feel any better, he didn't use a bible when he retook the oath.

Edited at 2009-01-22 08:01 pm UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cubbi
2009-01-22 08:16 pm UTC (link)
He still said shmG. The comments to that post are funny, though :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]freakylynx
2009-01-22 08:35 pm UTC (link)
Seriously though, there was a lawsuit to prevent Roberts from saying 'So help me God'? If Obama thought it was inappropriate, couldn't he have made a request before the Inauguration?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cubbi
2009-01-22 08:52 pm UTC (link)
Yep, there is a lawsuit: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cubbi
2009-01-22 11:43 pm UTC (link)
Oh, here's the final court order on that:

http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2009-01-16%20District%20Court%20ORDER.pdf

as expected, preliminary injunction denied because of a lot of issues (mainly no standing and now they have to prove by feb 23rd that they have any)

And yes, in the previous such lawsuit, against Bush, the court said "[T]he
only party against whom an injunction would redress Newdow’s injury is President Bush. He has ultimate decision-making power in selecting speakers for the Inauguration, including clergy"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sciucaro
2009-01-22 10:51 pm UTC (link)
Providence would have been more sensible to use.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cubbi
2009-01-22 10:57 pm UTC (link)
Indicentally, Providence RI was founded by the group of people banished from Massachusets for preaching the dangerous heresy of thw separation of Church and State :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]araquan
2009-01-23 01:30 am UTC (link)
Yeah, well, look who settled MA. };>

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]firestar3590
2009-01-23 03:51 am UTC (link)
I agree with you. It really pisses me off, the constant and blatant violations of the supposed doctrine of separation of church and state. -_____-+

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]araquan
2009-01-23 05:20 am UTC (link)
That doesn't piss me off half as much as the oft-heard retort that actually enforcing the separation is "pushing atheism."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]stanium
2009-01-23 09:52 am UTC (link)
I'm completely agree with Greta's post on the subject, thou I'm neither believer nor non-believer.

In Russia, the church is gradually getting closer to the power, but I can hardly say there THAT much influence of former on latter. Yet I can't imagine any Russian politician making a speech like that.

What I got from Greta's post resembles me of speeches of magisters in medieval Holy Roman Empire. Not to mentions there's a room for the crusade metaphore, too.

(Reply to this)

(11 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…