It's January 21st and I'm sitting here and wondering if I feel any different now that Camelot has returned to the white house. Nope, I still feel mostly the same, mostly me and somewhat happier to be a citizen of the united states. Now I'm not so blind as to think that the wearing in of our first African-American president will solve all of our economic, political and social problems. Nope, not at all how I fell, but I do feel, for the first time in a while, that's it's OK to be American again. There were big ceilings shattered yesterday, big huge glass ceilings, not sure if this is restoration, but it is a mile stone, it does mean something beyond the scope of a new president and ending the Bush years that have eroded some of our most fundamental freedoms. I don't have any doubt that Obama will do his utmost to steer this ship as best he can, to be quite honest, I'll go so far as to say that Bush did the same thing or at least thought he was doing the same thing. He's a believer, one of those people that believes in divine mandates and metaphysical dictates from other worldly plains. This may explain quite a bit of how misguided things went during his tenure at the helm. Still, I don't think B.H.O. is the Messiah and I don't expect the blind to see, the infirm to walk and the dead rise from their graves in a messianic thriller. I am however hopeful that certain things will be better, and that the focus of this man will be on science, environment, civil rights, bringing equality to the corners of our society and improving the image of America abroad because of neo-con driven regime change. Finally a bit of regime change at home...
One thing bothers me though... this Presidential Oath we subject our elected President too. If the United States was intended as a place where there was a high and definite wall between Church & State then the entire inaugural process, the grandeur that was 1.20.09 was flawed and contrary to the spirit of what the framer's intended through the constitution. From the invocation by Rick Warren to the presence and use of the Lincoln Bible, for that matter any bible, during the inauguration is in direct opposition to the separation that is supposed to be present in our government. I think its fantastic that B.H.O. included a conservative pastor and a gay priest, however neither of them should've been included in what should be a civil engagement of state. Just as the word Marriage should be used for religious unions and civil unions be the only ones recognized by a state that purports to be truly separated from the offices of the church, so too should the inauguration of a President be free invocations by clergy or clerics, free of iconic books and oaths taken upon them. Why didn't B.H.O. swear on something like the original American flag, an Oath to the state and the people that came before, or on the Constitution itself, or better yet on the Bill of Rights, these are symbols and instruments of the state, a compact and legal contract between the office of the executive and the people that have elected him to govern the nation. Isn't this a more fitting symbol on which to stake the oath of office than a book, even as historically important as one belonging to Abe Lincoln, which carries with it the baggage of faith, division and sectarianism? Is not the constitution or the bill of rights a sacred enough document upon which to commit to the people of this great nation that you will do your utmost to steer this ship right and remain free of the influences of metaphysical deities, clerics and proselytizers? Is not the heart of the Oath to protect and defend the constitution and not the Bible? We are not inaugurating the next holy roman emperor, are we?
Posts
1 comment:
My thoughts exactly. I wonder how old each of those inaugural traditions is--the prayers, the use of the bible--how they were originally implimented, and what, if any, legal basis there is for there use. I don't recall the ceremony described in the constitution. Where does they come from?
Post a Comment