This is an article I found on the Washington Post website. It's called "Obama Ushers In An Era of Inclusion." We haven't discussed the relationship between race and religion much, so I thought this might produce an interesting conversation. This article discusses Obama's choice in speakers for the invocation and benediction at the Inauguration. I think some interesting ideas to talk about might be how it is "safe" to broach the "race issue" under the umbrella of Christianity and why the author believes these choices that Obama made are a symbol of inclusion. (Not very religiously inclusive, in my opinion.) Rev. Lowery's final words, "all who embrace justice say amen" are also quite interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303507.html
After reading the article, I see this as a symbolic, but potentially important political move in part by Obama. While who is reading a prayer isn't actually that relevant to how Obama will be as a president, it will (hopefully) change the minds of many people who see this act of reaching out. More conservative, religious people could see this as a move that Obama is not a leftist and is willing to work between parties. Despite the fact that I think this won't have much bearing on his presidency (as it shouldn't) it does raise issues of religion in America and how pervasive it still is in politics. His choice of pastor Warren and Rev. Lowery just show the range of religion in America today. Hopefully Rev. Lowery's words will help people recognize their similarities through religion.
ReplyDeleteIn one of my other classes, Dr. Anderson said, "Religion is the greatest hope for peace, but also the greatest threat." Could religion be a uniting factor to potentially overcome race?
I would have to agree that this is a strong step towards bringing people in America together. Many conservatives (and even some moderates and liberals) believed that Obama was so far to the left that he would not even consider reaching across party lines to solve issues. However, this parallels the current situation dealing with the economic stimulus plan that was just passed in the House. Due to the fact that approximately zero House Republicans voted for the plan, Obama recently stated that he hopes that enough small changes can be made to gain some support from the right in the Senate. This shows that Obama truly wants support from all people, not just the liberal left.
ReplyDeleteI think religion is a personal matter and should be sperated from the state. It aggrevates me that the fact that Obama picking a church even made the news. I'm glad he's trying to bring people together from the left and the right side, but I don't religion is the way to bring them together. I think religion truely is the greatest threat because it is such a personal issue to people.
ReplyDelete"He put together liberal Protestants, evangelical Protestants and African American Protestants. It's a clear signal of no more religious division."
ReplyDeleteClearly there will be no more division, because everyone falls under one of those three categories. So everyone was included. /sarcasm
I wish religion was used more frequently to unite people in spite of their differences but unfortunately, possibly because of how strongly people feel about their faith, it seems to divide more than unite. Religion/faith is such a personal thing for people and because of that I think it can be hard to take another's point of view as just as powerful or relevant as ones own.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the article, I think the fact that Obama had ministers from different denominations speak is important and does signal inclusion. However, if you ask a non-Christian or someone who doesn't know the difference between Christian denominations, it probably wouldn't mean "inclusion" to them, it's still just "Christian."
after reading the article and some of the comments (i agree with parts and disagree with others) i feel slightly depressed... while i hope President Obama has a successful presidency because this country needs that more than anything, my other politically disillusioned side believes that this choosing speakers from different sections within the Christian community is nothing more than a gigantic political farce...all politicians are alike in that they always feel the need to be shown well in the press (because 90% of america knows nothing beyond what they see on tv or read online) thus my conviction points this to be nothing more than an attempt to use religion as a tool of support and positive imagery toward his presidency...this makes it even worse than had he put someone up there he really believed in (or nobody if that's his true belief) because a show of honesty would've given me a great sigh of relief and perhaps eased the thoughts that something might actually be changing (as he promised in his campaign) in Washington...
ReplyDeleteRob - you are right in using the word "disillusioned." We, as political beings, have no hope if every future politician is grouped under the umbrella of "all politicians are alike..." Furthermore, who does not feel the need to be shown well in the press? Lastly, the press decides who is shown well in the press.
ReplyDeleteThe 21st century's (based upon the Christian calendar) militant secularization of (or attempt at) the state falls completely in line with neoconservative color-blindness. Lets just get rid of all race and ignore the racial history of America. While we're at it, lets get rid of all religion and ignore the Judeo-Christian history of America.
An interesting contradiction in any secular critique BY and OF Washington is Washington's own alliance with the JEWISH state of Israel. So... We can easily attack Obama's Christianity (much like we did during the campaign), and we can spend over $100 billion in support of a "democracy" that denies human rights on the basis of religious discrimination. The tragedy of America is that we consciously do both.