Obama under fire for inauguration decision

December 18, 11:14 AMAtheism ExaminerTrina Hoaks

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Atheism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

(AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)
Aug. 16, 2008, Obama and Warren.

Obama came under fire yesterday for his decision to have Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in California, deliver the invocation at his inauguration. The heat is coming from gay activists across the nation, but particularly in California where Warren was a strong proponent of the California Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Although it is understandable that the gay community is in an uproar over Obama’s decision, what should be called into question is why there is any inaugural time dedicated to a religious invocation in the first place. It really has no place there any more than does the Bible during the swearing of the Presidential Oath.

It seems somewhat contradictory for an incoming president to recite the oath, swearing to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” with one hand on the Bible. With the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in mind, the very action of swearing the oath on a Bible seems immediately to nullify the oath.

Reportedly, there have been presidents who swore their oath without the use of the Bible, as it should be. One in particular, John Quincy Adams, is said to have sworn on a book of US law. All presidents should take a lesson from Adams.

While gay activists continue to express their anger over who was chosen to deliver the invocation, there are those who will continue to express their disgust over the fact that any religious ritual, such as an invocation, is included in the inauguration at all.