Friday, January 16, 2009 at 3:00AM | in Religion Pluralism beats fundamentalisms
League of Nations Building, GenevaIt would be a shame to see America get drawn into the same fruitless European debates about whether religious language may feature in the public sphere/square (pick your geometry). I agree with Rabbi Hirschfield's defense of 'the option to pray' in the American Presidential inauguration:
I know that some will argue that the presence of any overtly religious language or imagery should be off limits at the inauguration. But they are wrong. In fact, such people are every bit as fanatical in their rejection of religion as the religious folks to whom they object. Like the fanatically religious, the fanatically secular insist that one can only bring their voice to the public square upon passing some theological litmus test. And frankly, we should save litmus tests for chemistry class.
As a side-note, beliefnet has compiled and posted invocations and benedictions at Presidential inaugurals since 1937. I found it interesting that after WWII a Jewish blessing began to be included among the Christian ones. The last three Presidents seem to have dropped the Rabbis from their schedule though. What's up with that?
I have a feeling that in a few decades we will see a line-up of religious leaders at the inauguration in an acknowledgement of the rich religious fabric of America. Well, I hope so anyway.
Friday, January 16, 2009 at 3:00AM | in Religion 
Reader Comments (4)
I'm looking forward to your insights about Martin Luther King - a religious leader with political clout who managed to convey a higher non-partisan vision. Did he ever speak at an inauguration? What happened at the March on Washington, and how will Tuesday compare?
I don't think MLK ever spoke at an inauguration. As for comparing Tuesday with the March on Washington, I think they're quite different. Obama's selection of Rick Warren has garnered him a lot of criticism, primarily because I think some people see Obama as 'their guy' rather than 'everyone's president'. I think the selection of Warren was deft, if only because it symbolizes Obama's willingness to promote unity and compromise. Warren represents many Americans who have traditionally identified as outside of the Democratic party.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there's a difference between an event that incarnates national unity and one promoting an agenda of reform. And that's why I think it's unfortunate that the movement towards religious pluralism after WWII was reversed.
[...] a couple days ago I said this: I have a feeling that in a few decades we will see a line-up of religious leaders at the [...]
[...] posted a couple times on the question of the inaugural prayers in the US becoming less inclusive over the past 60 [...]