WhyTF are prayers allowed at inaguration?

[Josie]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

The establishment and separation of church and state clauses do have a problem with it.

You would've haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated George Washington then.

 

[VanceMack]

Because the Constitution never said anything about 'separation of church and state'. The Constitution does not mandate a government or people free of religion. The Constitution states simply that the government shall establish no official religion or deny the free practice of religion. Period.

 

[Harshaw]

The establishment and separation of church and state clauses do have a problem with it.

I am SO CERTAIN that you were this histrionic over it at Obama's inauguration that I'm not even going to check your post history, because I KNOW I will find it there, in all its hissy-fit glory.

Right?

 

[Fishking]

I don't care about that. Where I start to have a problem is when people run for office stating, "I'm a <insert religion here> first." Both Cruz and Pence did that repeatedly. If a Muslim did it, the right would explode.

Naw...Christians don't have a history of using suicide vests.

 

[ocean515]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

It's that 1st Amendment thing.

Progressives might go back to their trainers and ask why they are being taught so little about it.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I am surprised he isn't yelling about being "triggered".

:lamo :lamo

 

[ludin]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

it is called the constitution and the 1st amendment you should look it up.

 

[ludin]

Because the Constitution never said anything about 'separation of church and state'. The Constitution does not mandate a government or people free of religion. The Constitution states simply that the government shall establish no official religion or deny the free practice of religion. Period.

simple concept but frankly to complex for some people to grasp.

 

[Mithrae]

Yes, this is the kind of thing the ignorant left will focus on.

Not what's best for America or issues that matter......

So typical

Some people would read the OP and think "I disagree with AtlantaAdonis' histrionic opinion."

You apparently read it and believe that prayer at a presidential inaugration is a left vs. right issue :roll:

 

[Mycroft]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

I suggest you stay away from such events as much as possible. I'd hate for you to have a seizure AND a heart attack.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Damn dude, I agree it is a silly superstition but chill out.

 

[apdst]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

Why shouldn't they be allowed?

 

[calamity]

its to upset hateful atheists who have kittens over people invoking God. I am agnostic but I also understand the tradition. I am waiting for someone to complain that while there were Protestant, evangelical and Roman Catholic clergy and a Rabbi, there was no Imam.

I hear ya. I don't believe in god at all, but sheesh. Why get upset over some pageantry during a ceremony?

 

[D_NATURED]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

The reason is, American Christians don't understand the concept of personal faith. For it to be "real" to them, it must wield as much collective, political power as it does personal power. They demand that they be patronized at every opportunity. America, after all was conquored, kept and controlled in His name.

What good is a god that only lives in your head in times of need. He must be bigger than that, more omnipresent, by virtue of the public demonstration of His ability to corrupt the senses of kings and paupers alike.

Praying at the inaugeration is a big ol' message to the world that we're no less shackled by magical thinking than we've ever been. The tradition of imagining an alternate reality into existence is alive and well.

I too would prefer a more rational expression of hope that the new guy isn't the douche he appears to be.

 

[EvMetro]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

We have prayers at inauguration just to make lefties squirm. We know that lefties are simply people who do not live by the benchmark moral compass, so we know how to make them squirm. You better hold on, because this is only the beginning. Pretty soon, you will see lefties having to get up and go to work, and you will see lefties wearing hardhats....

 

[faithful_servant]

The establishment and separation of church and state clauses do have a problem with it.

More stupid ideas. The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall pass no law..." Please explain to us what law was passed.

 

[faithful_servant]

Dramatic much? :violin

I am surprised he isn't yelling about being "triggered".

He's OK. He's got his cuddle blanket and nice safe place behind the couch. It's dark and warm and he's got his 3rd grade participation trophy for not having any "accidents" all years, so he's OK.

 

[faithful_servant]

Dramatic much? :violin

Aside from a letter written by Jefferson, there is no separation of church and state. And there is no clause addressing the issue.

.. and that letter was DIRECTLY addressing an issue of the State interfering with the Church. That "wall of separation" that liberals like to blather about is a wall keeping the government out of the Church, not the Church out of the government. Reading both Danbury letters makes that VERY clear. Reading the Constitution makes that VERY clear. Listening to a liberal lie about what it means is the only thing confuses things.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

Some people would read the OP and think "I disagree with AtlantaAdonis' histrionic opinion."
You apparently read it and believe that prayer at a presidential inaugration is a left vs. right issue :roll:

Sorry, he's a lefty, the rioters are lefties....the truth speaks for itself. "T-r-u-t-h". Look it up.

The right is NOT the problem. Now get some play doh and crayons and go to your safe place.

 

[LowDown]

The establishment and separation of church and state clauses do have a problem with it.

Religion has been a part of the inauguration since George Washington was sworn in. Apart from having this historical traditional significance, it's silly to say that because they had a non-denominational prayer that religion was being "established." Wait until Congress passes a law making Christianity the national religion to complain about that.

Some new atheists are apparently out to prove to the world that they are gigantic peevish jackasses.

By the way, there is no separation of church and state clause. Congress is barred from establishing a religion or prohibiting the practice of a religion. That's all. The 14th amendment extended this to the state governments. Until then some of them had their own official religions.

 

[Jack Hays]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

If the POTUS-elect wants prayers, he/she gets prayers.

 

[volsrock]

I turned on the inauguration expecting to only get nauseated, but instead almost have a seizure and a heart attack. Why the **** do we allow this nonsense to be on an inauguration in 2017? This is a very, very ominous sign for our country over the next administration.

Did u see fit to bitch about this in 2012?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Yeah, I'm a rabid supporter of the establishment clause, but this is going a little too far. Prayer need not suppose or support the existence of a personal deity. It can simply be a way to calm and orient one's mind away from personal concerns towards more universal concerns--away from concerns about reputation, personal fortune, or even bodily safety and towards concern for others, for doing what is right in the face of injustice, and for being tolerant of people one doesn't like so well. And as far as I can see, politicians are in constant need of such reorientation.

 

[rockabillylaker]

I was raised Catholic but, pretty much knocking on the athiests door. Well maybe I'm just strolling the neighborhood. I don't have a problem with the prayer.

 

[joG]

Every POTUS since FDR has had a prayer at their inauguration, so what? I'm an atheist but I don't find anything wrong with it. If people want to pray then let them.

I tend to agree fully and dislike the overblown atheist agitation.

But there is a certain question of state ritual including religious rituals like prayers I'd compatible with the Constitution.