There has been lots of debate over whether President-elect Obama should have Rick Warren give an invocation at his inauguration. Whether or not this is a good time in our history to stop this practice, I question whether this practice should continue and whether it is in fact an American tradition. It only began in 1933. Does it comport with separation of church and state, and is this practice only becoming more offensive and divisive as non-Christian and non-religious citizens increase?
Since 1933, The United States presidential inauguration has included one or more prayers given by members of the clergy.
Presidential Inaugurations Past and Present: A Look at the History Behind the Pomp and Circumstance
Donald R. Kennon, Chief Historian, United States Capitol Historical Society
Foreign Press Center Briefing
Washington, DC
January 13, 2005. . .
MR. DENIG: If I might ask a question. One of the things I've noticed at inaugurations is the fact that one or several clergymen are usually asked to give a prayer or word of benediction or something like that. And the thing about that that strikes me is that over the years, these clergymen have become more and more diverse. It is no longer simply a Christian minister. There's usually a rabbi and I don't know what else.
DR. KENNON: There's a rabbi -- mm-hmm.
MR. DENIG: Perhaps you could comment on that.
DR. KENNON: Yeah, that's exactly right. In fact, the role of clergy in our inaugural ceremonies is a recent development that began in 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt had a minister to give a benediction, and then his following inauguration had an invocation and a benediction. And it has involved Catholic priests. It has involved Protestant ministers. It's involved Jewish rabbis. So there has been a little bit more diversity in the -- again, religion supports the government. The government doesn't necessarily support or favor any specific religion or Christian denomination.
I also question whether Obama should say "so help me God" at the end of his oath, rather than say what the Constitution requires.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/...
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States."
In the speech linked above, historian Donald Kennon states:
Now, Washington also set a precedent by adding, after he said the oath of office, the words: "So help me, God." Now, if you go on the website of the Presidential Inaugural Committee today, they will give you the text of the oath of office and they say it's as specified in the Constitution. And then they have the text. And then they put the, "So help me, God." [But] "So help me, God" is not in the Constitution. It's not specified. It's something that was added by Washington and has been said by almost every president since then. There have been a couple of occasions when that didn't happen. One was, Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. He simply forgot because he was in such a hurry to get to his inaugural address – in 1933, it's his first inauguration, he is facing the Great Depression, and he is anxious to get to his speech where he -- you may recall the famous words -- "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," -- a plea for unity in the face of the Great Depression.
This Wikipedia article says that there is no evidence that Washington added "so help me God." However, the article also says that other federal oaths at the time added the phrase, to be used if the oath-giver swore rather than affirmed, so this might be said to be a tradition.
According to this source, many presidents since Washington used scripture passages, but it is not clear whether these were read or just that the Bible was opened to these passages.
There are many traditions I have taken for granted as long-standing, only to learn they are fairly recent. For example "under God" in the Peldge of Allegiance, added by during the Eisenhower administration, or the Star Spangled Banner, made our official national anthem under Roosevelt, replacing the unofficial national anthem, "Hail Columbia."
I think the lyrics of Hail, Columbia are more substantial in describing revolutionary ideals, though they tend toward worship of Washington and his "God-like power."
We will hear "Hail Columbia," or the tune at least, at the inauguration, before the vice-president takes his oath.
Anyway, I just want to raise the question of whether we should have inaugural prayers at all. Does this practice comport with separation of church and state?
Invocation and benediction are theological terms for prayers at the beginning and end of Christian worship services. Does that make the inauguration in the middle a worship service?
If religion at the inauguration is OK, is it enough now to have an occasional rabbi in addition to Protestant ministers and Catholic priests, now that there are about half as many Muslim citizens as Jewish citizens?
What about Buddhists and Hindus, who each number about the same as Muslims?
And what about those with no religion, now estimated at 15%?
Here's a Hindu priest opening the Senate last year:
Rather than the Christian hecklers in the video, I would like to see principled objection to any official prayer in our government.
Here is a lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow in 2004, trying to stop prayer at the 2005 inauguration. The complaint attaches data on religious denominations and a 2001 article by Alan Dershowitz arguing the prayers are unconstitutional.