American Ubuntu proclaimed today, but you don’t have to take my word for it – here is the White House Proclamations page link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog…
For the exact words:
NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009
– – – – – – –
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.
We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.
On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright — it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.
So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
Our new President is calling for nothing less than the rebirth of the Republic, of, by, and for the people and for all of us to do our part – starting today.
The great wind of Spirit that swept through the Regent Theater today, and lifted everyone to their feet presaged this proclamation. This is a call to action, and to do more than talking about unity, renewal, and taking care of one another.
Stay tuned. Life is going to get a lot more exciting and renewal is in all of our hands.
oysh! can we EVER get away from the god talk, even for one moment in a “unity” proclamation? i appreciate the gesture he’s making with this proclamation, but using god talk shuts out a segment of the population from the business of the day. and according to the 1st amendment, there is no “our lord”. or at least, there isn’t supposed to be if you respect the constitution. i’m happy for obama if he thinks his god is awesome (who wants a wimpy god?), but he needs to remember the office from which he operates now. this isn’t the campaign trail any longer.
Who woulda thunk it?
<
p>Gratuitous use of exclusionary Christian-speak was wrong when Bush did it, and is wrong when Obama does it. Especially in official documents.
We each make ourselves happy or miserable, frankly.
<
p>However, ehther one uses the term “better Angels of our nature”, or “higher selves ” or “self-actualization” the reality is that each of us has the opportunity to choose qualities [more old fashioned language coming, look out] like:
<
p>1. Fortitude
2. Self discipline
3. Honesty
4. Integrity
5. Compassion
<
p>[Just for starters} – or not. I consider that those qualities I numbered 1-5, above, were part of what Abraham Lincoln was taking about when he used the phrase “angels of our better nature” and his listeners at the time would have known and understood those words.
<
p>Unfortunately, during the years of easy credit and out of wedlock pregnancy instant gratification was the norm – and it really will take a return to the concepts I have listed to put this country – AND this economy – and governance back on a solid footing.
mention non-believers as part of the American people in his speech. That was apparently the first inaugural address in which that has happened.
and in my mind the least he could do for bracketing everything he does with overtly christian language, clergy and prayers. but that one mention will be forgotten after a few more days of his steady on-the-job god talk.
They were like, “No, he didn’t just say what I thought he said, did he? I don’t believe it!”
And I hope he keeps mentioning those who don’t believe in God (non-believers). The PC movement in this country has taken God away for too long and not remained in-line with our country’s history. We should stop limiting towns from having manger’s and nativity scenes in public places. Stop people from putting crucifixes in hospitals. We should instead be more inclusive and allow people from all religions put their symbols right beside the Christian symbols. Let kids in public schools sing Christmas songs… as well as Chanukah, Kwanzaa and whatever other religious songs the community wants to hear. This sounds much more like “Renewal and Reconciliation” than removing all aspects of any religion.
<
p>Speaking of hope and faith… I have heard those words repeated a few thousand times over the last few days. I have also heard an almost preemptive attack against anyone who doesn’t feel this way. Critiques will be held up for contempt and any dissenters will be in for a beating. Part of Obama’s speech mentioned “not” silencing dissenters and I hope all the people who believe in his message will be tolerant of those who dissent. I want people who believe in a religion to be able to celebrate their particular faith and the non-believers should be free to celebrate their non-belief.
“The PC movement in this country has taken God away for too long and not remained in-line with our country’s history.”
<
p>Give me a break. No one is trying to take away God. We just want it away from official business. For the good of BOTH state AND religion. You know, the way the founders of our country actually intended it.
<
p>Go find another canard, this one isn’t quacking.
<
p>Scalia thanks you.
…known to commit some extraordinary mental gymnastics in order to say simultaneously that his moral precepts are not considered in his duty as a judge (sticking to the precepts before him in the law), but that he ultimately considers it a given that there is divine authority behind government and that democracy tends to obscure it. He considers the ‘right’ (or at least ‘healthy’) thing to do is to combat this tendency with various public acknowledgments of God. So he is either a hypocrite or his originalist views conveniently interpret the establishment clause in favor of his own views.
not to mention obama referencing “the scripture” in his inaugural address and draping his first official action with christian terminology and boasting of his god’s prowess, is proof positive that god has been taken away. You are so right, JohnD.
Laurel, you’re really troubled by this?
<
p>Lots of government documents use this phrase. I’m looking up at my certificates of admission to the Massachusetts bar and the bar of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and both use the phrase (though, interestingly, the U.S. District Court’s form does not). Personally, I don’t see how this is problematic, insofar as our entire calendar is based on calculating the year 1 based on the supposed birth of Jesus. (I say “supposed” not because I doubt Jesus lived, but because I gather there’s a dispute about the year of his birth).
<
p>One alternative is to use “C.E.” (“Common Era”) instead of “A.D.,” but for the real purist, it seems to me this can’t be enough. If you’re going to object to “A.D.,” “year of our Lord,” etc., don’t you have to clamor for a non-sectarian calendar? I don’t think the last experiment along these lines (at least the last one known to me) worked out so well.
<
p>TedF
… arbitrary and based on Jesus date. I admit this isn’t exactly 10 on my ‘bug me’ scale, but it does bug me. In particular the phrase “our”. The government shouldn’t assert ‘our’ relationship with any deity. This is a small and inane assertion, probably not actually meant to be asserted by those who use it in the government’s documents, but the language is an assertion nonetheless of the kind that the government is prohibited from making.
<
p>Small… but as my philosophy professor once said: words mean things.
What? Did you want him to only use the year since independence?
<
p>Like it or not, the way to formally describe the year in our calender system is “the year of our Lord”, since that is what the calender measures from. Other countries use other systems. Taiwan measures from the founding of the Chinese Republic in 1912 and Israel from the supposed creation of the World, but what Obama did is the correct formal way to state the year in America.
<
p>If you go to Sanders Theater in Harvard (and can read enough Latin to understand it) they use the same system in the inscriptions there of recounting both the years since Jesus’s birth and the years since the country’s founding.
… to say ‘the year 2009’. If both are correct, then I opt for keeping god out of it.
but less formal.
above.
<
p>I’m sure the language can be gussied up to meet anyone’s standard of ‘formal speech’ without having to invoke god. If the invocation isn’t needed (and clearly it isn’t) then it shouldn’t be used. Not the end all and be all of the establishment clause, but true nonetheless.
It’s a formality more than anything, but if we are going to call this year 2009 we might as well be honest about what its the 2009th year of. Granted the years have been 4-7 years miscalculated, but that’s another issue. Would you prefer Year of the Christian Era? I certainly don’t want Year of the Common Era as its both meaningless and begs the question “Common to whom?” putting us right where we started. Designating the year hardly establishes religion and certainly doesn’t prohibit free exercise and falls into the same harmless category of “In God We Trust” or “under God”. Besides, the Constitution itself was promulgated per Article VII, “in the Year of our Lord One-Thousand, Seven-Hundred and Eighty-Seven and in the Year of the Independence of the United States, the Twelth” and since then it’s been pretty standard formula. I’m unapologetically traditionalist when it comes to the formalities so long as it doesn’t cost anything or harm anyone.
it tells people that to be in the club, you have to believe in “our lord”. it is a needless manner of expression, can be easily replaced with inoffensive yet equally flowery language, and undermines the 1st amendment. there is no reason to perpetuate the habit.
…being ‘in the club is nothing short of reality. We don’t see it as optional. We see it as being what it is. It’s not something we pick up and put down like a toy. Nor do we treat it as a gym membership to be joined or refused as the whim strikes.
<
p>I understand that you made a choice to believe differently. That’s your choice. It’s even your choice to think I might be insane. Maybe I am. That still doesn’t mean I have to be insane on your terms.
<
p>
… has no place assigning or picking clubs. When the document says ‘our’ it better damn well mean me too. It doesn’t. It can’t. That’s the problem. You correctly point out that it’s a choice. Your religious reality may differ and you’re, of course, entitled to it. It has no business being part of government, however. It’s not my end all and be all issue, but there it is.
as i said below to petr, i didn’t go looking for this topic, but was presented with it upon reading this diary and so decided to speak up. that said, i do think it is important to speak up when this happens because this habit of establishing christianity as part of the official national identity is so pervasive as to be almost invisible to most people.
<
p>I think the document does mean you too, it just assumes a context that you don’t share. I don’t see the ruination of civilization in that… The separation of church and state is not the negation of church by the state and is, in fact, meant to prevent the negation of the state by the church… I think we’re doing good so far.
<
p>I think Barack Obama can invoke $DEITY where-ever and whenever he wants,as a personal reflecion of his belief in $DEITY. I no more think that’s an endorsement of state-sponsored religion than I think his choice of a red tie endorses republicans.
<
p>The fundamental issue is, aptly enough for this thread, an inability to reconcile: each side of this issue thinks the other side is deluded…
<
p>Atheists that I’ve known get exasperated waiting for me to ‘get over’ this religion thing. “Don’t foist your fantasies upon me,” is the (paraphrased) refrain I’ve heard time and time and again. And yes, I’m including a lot of atheist here in this. I’ve noted the exasperation.
<
p>On the other hand, the religious become exasperated because we see our beliefs as having to do with reality and not, in point of fact, ‘fantasies’. We often see atheists as the ones who are muddled and confused (I’m looking at you Hitchens…) It doesn’t help, of course, that a certain (vocal) subset of Christians, fundamental in nature and sorta on the megalomaniacal side, feels incumbent in being belligerent while trying to convert the world, by force if necessary.
<
p>I agree that the document certainly intends to mean me. In doing so it also proclaims that it’s ‘my’ lord too. Simply put, it shouldn’t do that. It’s objectionable and therefor I object.
<
p>Note I didn’t say anything about atheism or fantasies. It’s about government’s entanglement in religion.
<
p>And as far as ‘exasperation’ is concerned, I was perfectly content to register my objection and leave it at that. But if people are going to tell me I’m wrong to object, I’ll defend my objection. I think this is a mole-hill, but an objectionable one that should be taken care of at some point nonetheless.
<
p>… don’t listen to JFKs inaugural address… You’ll have a coronary!
… of individuals in the government can (and do) say whatever they want about god (usually to be elected). Different thing entirely.
… seriously, you oughta to listen to the speech. Honestly, if you object to ‘year of our lord’ then the JFK inaugural speech will truly give you a coronary…
i was born in this country, and therefore expect to be considered as much a part of the citizenry as anyone else. i’m already excluded from equal protection of the laws because i’m gay. perhaps this is why obama’s gratuitous use of exclusionary language bothers me more than it does many others; i’m already raw from other fundamental battles to be a full citizen.
<
p>but regardless, i am disappointed that people are so flip about a new president, no matter how popular, acting unconstitutionally and in a manner diametrically opposed to his supposed call for unity. excluding non-christian americans from the rhetoric by using patently christian language in official documents is guaranteed to divide.
Hardly – good luck getting the SCOTUS to agree with you. After all, that august body also opens it’s sessions with the words: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court”. I’m about as wall-of-separation as they come and am often quick to shoot down arguments suggesting that the US was founded as a Christian nation. However, nothing in the Constitution forbids public references to God.
<
p>I would also suggest that you may have fallen into a trap set by the fundamentalists among us. They want us to believe that these passing references prove that the US was founded not just as a Christian nation, but Christian in their narrow definition. When “God” is used in these contexts it is meant to be a universal and generic supreme being a la Freemasonry rather than a biblicly-based Judeo-Christian deity.
It absolutely forbids some public references. This is just wrong on its face.
<
p>
<
p>Which is consistent if you want to assert that its ok for the government to be entangled in the affirmation of “a unersal and generic supreme being”. I don’t think its ok. The world is a bigger place now and the ‘universality’ can no longer be said to be universal in the eyes of the population. That means the government has to get out of the affirmation business, however ‘harmless’ people deem it to be.
I’ve studied the history and the writings of the founding era quite a bit and am confident that I am correct in my characterization of the founders’ God. There is no clause whatsoever forbidding a passing “year of our Lord” especially when the Constitution itself does it, and as I’ve mentioned the first amendment does NOT strike that clause. Nothing about this in anyway disables you as a citizen for not believing.
Nothing about this indicates that you are not fully entitled to enjoy the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship based on your non-belief. There’s no undermining of the first amendment as the Constitution itself ends this way. The later amendment was an addendum only and was never intended to substitute or override anything in the original document. After all, the same original document expressly forbids religious tests for public office so I think the intent against exclusion is clear.
… the document is intended to refer to Laurel and I as inclusive in ‘our’. When it proclaims ‘our lord’ the linguistics of it assert that it’s also Laurel and my lord. An official state document has no business making such an assertion, however inane. It is often indicated that such statements are inane or harmless, but that just turns into a reason to tolerate their pervasiveness in our state documents and rituals. It’s a fundamental conflict that the state purports to be separated from these things yet they are pervasive. It’s entanglement ‘by a thousand cuts’.
would consider the Lord you and Laurel’s Lord regardless of your recognition of such. He is!
The christian is allowed to have opinions my relationship to divinity. The government is not.
Meanwhile, the Christian president you elected isn’t going to magically become super secular.
<
p>…….mostly because magic is practiced by warlocks and anyone who has seen Jesus Camp knows warlocks go to Hell.
… acknowledge god, however, in a public document. The government is us and that means me. If the standard is “does the government force me to go to church?” then this is a bigger problem than stated here. 😉
<
p>I have no illusions about Obama’s christianity. However, noting Laurel’s point that it’s important to speak up, I was (as I’ve indicated elsewhere) content to just register my complaint and leave it at that, but if people are going to try to explain to me why I don’t have a complaint, I’m perfectly willing to explain why I do.
<
p>Haven’t seen Jesus Camp, but want to. 😉
and check your email – problem solved. Us kids and our interwebz skill. 1337.
It may be something of the “royal we” involved as well. To say that it is also your lord or Laurel’s is too specific. Yes, I absolutely do tolerate its “pervasiveness” in our state documents and rituals. My advice is ignore it. Jefferson said, “I care not whether my neighbor worships no god or twenty gods – it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg.” I think we could easily change “neighbor” to “country” and “worships” to acknowledges, and it still picks nobody’s pocket or breaks anyone’s leg.
… to say ‘just ignore it’. At one time the only women you could see on TV were in domestic rolls and all the minorities you could see on TV were stereotypes. It was pervasive. No individual example actually seemed very harmful. In aggregate, the pervasiveness was harmful. At first there weren’t enough people to complain about it. Then as more and more women were no longer content to limited to domestic roles and minorities were no longer content to be stereotyped, things changed. But before they did, while the vast majority still deemed it harmless, it was still wrong. Imagine how much more offensive it would be if the entire broadcast community asserted simultaneously that they made a point of not asserting general characterizations about women or minorities.
<
p>Pervasiveness is an indicator that it’s a bigger problem than any one instance can illustrate.
Stereotyping does affect attitudes, but nobody is being stereotyped here. Maybe I should only speak for myself, but condoning references to God IN NO WAY makes me think less of atheists. I hope my fellow believers can say the same.
… have an easier time electing a felon than an atheist. You think the atmosphere permeated with references to god might have something to do with it? You do understand, I hope, that you are the exception, not the rule.
Felon over athiest?! That IS ridiculous. Especially since another part of our political culture requires candidates to show how tough they are on crime and we are the only advanced nation that still executes some criminals. I’ll never understand voters. In 2008 they got it right, but so often it comes down to whom you want to have a beer with. I’m personally acquainted with enough athiests to know that they are just as capable of possessing a moral compass as is a believer. It may be that I’m the exception; there’s nothing much I can say to that besides that it’s a sad state of affairs.
I think you misunderstand the “Common Era” usage. The “common era” concept as an indicator for dates has been around for a very long time — in some form for almost as long as A.D., and for a few hundred years as “common era.” Its meaning is well and widely understood, and it’s actually more accurate than A.D. (since, as you mention, Jesus was not actually born in the year 0 CE).
<
p>This is not a big deal, IMHO, but CE is a better system.
If we call this the common era, we are still acknowledging the Christian paradigm as the common one, albeit tacitly. The most neutral seems to call it the Christian Era, which honestly indicates the reason for the year numbering, while not implying that everyone is Christian.
Yeah, so we’re still acknowledging the Christian paradigm as the common one. So what? It is the common one.
<
p>But that doesn’t assume that everybody is Christian the way “year of our Lord” does. Common doesn’t mean everybody, nor does it imply belief.
This time too I agree with John – those with spiritual, religious beliefs should be as free to celebrate them, as those who soldier on nobly with unbelief and a moral code to celebrate their courage and dedication to a moral code without the solace of a higher power.
<
p>Both should be able to be open about their beliefs, whether in G*d or in unbelief [as curiously, unbelief is also a form of belief given the impossibility of using beakers, weights, and measure as a means of proof one way or the other].
but he needs to stop expressing his personal beliefs in official documents in his capacity as president. to my mind, “in the year of our lord” at the least defines who my president includes in “we”, and the worst is a step in establishing christianity as the official religion. it is plain as day that there is already a defacto religious test in this country. the winning religion is christianity.
Aren’t the civil and civic rights for which Laurel is fighting ‘endowed by their Creator’?
<
p>Our penultimate official documents, the Declaration of Independedce and the Constitution both reference religious belief.
<
p>But, Laurel – FWIW, during my time in the State House, I helped file a bill to change the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord’ to ‘On the Day and Date Here Named’ on behalf of a Jewish constituent who had been a Grand Jury foreman, who was affronted by the specifically Christian reference. While I believe in freedom expression, I also believe in civil denominational neutrality.
Not everyone will know that != says “is not equal to” in codespeak. LOL
<
p>I think this is fairly standard fare for this administration, and the 43 preceding administrations. I don’t think he’s reading it so much as farming out the message to an underling, who shoe-horns it into a boilerplate template that POTUS then signs, probably with less than a cursory glance.
<
p>I also think you need to stop working overtime looking for things to get yer knickers in a twist about…
i guess if you have nothing of substance to say, that’s all you’re left with. if obama shot a puppy in the head his first day in office because, well, all the other 43 had done so too, would you still discount his lack of imagination and reflection as ok by way of tradition? he did swear to defend the constitution, you know, not defile it.
I suppose there’s a somewhere where invoking ‘the year of our lord’ is somehow on par with ‘shot a puppy’… didn’t think it was here, though..
<
p>I repeat and I’m serious and I’m not trying to be insulting: take a break from looking fer things to be angry about. The perfect and the good aren’t antagonists and if you forsake the one in pursuit of the other, you’re asking for a great deal of cognitive dissonance…
that is what you said that is insulting. petr, did i post the diary? no. but upon reading AmberPaw’s diary, i felt moved to comment. just like every other person on this blog who comments in other peoples’ diaries. just like you. shall i demean your thoughts with “knickers in a twist” if i don’t care about something you care about?
… and that could be taken as disrespect. My apologies. That is not how I meant it.
<
p>It’s been amply demonstrated, here and in other places, that many people don’t give a fig about many of the things I care about. I deal. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t bother me. It does mean that I have to deal, and not them.
When are you going to change your tagline to get rid of “elect” in Obama’s title?:)
… when the phrase ‘George Bush is no longer president’ no longer suffuses me with a radiant joy and effusive good will towards all mankind..
<
p>or..
<
p>.. when I get off my lazy butt and do it…
<
p>