Perils and politics of inaugural prayers

Justin Sullivan GETTY IMAGES U.S. President Barack Obama (L) and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (R) listen as Rev. Luis … Continued

Justin Sullivan

GETTY IMAGES

U.S. President Barack Obama (L) and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (R) listen as Rev. Luis Leon gives the benediction during the presidential inauguration on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol January 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Prayers delivered at presidential inaugurations are rarely quoted and quickly forgotten (at least in the earthly realm).

But in today’s deeply divided America, who prays the prayers – and who doesn’t – is fast becoming a religio-political weathervane pointing to the direction cultural winds are blowing.

President Obama’s choice of the first lay person to give the inaugural invocation might have caused at least a minor stir in other years. But because Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of civil rights martyr Medgar Evers, was the one selected to pray – and the ceremony fell on Martin Luther King Day – the departure from clergy-led prayers provoked little comment or debate.

More controversial, however, was the last-minute withdrawal of Pastor Louie Giglio, the evangelical minister from Atlanta originally invited to offer the benediction.

Giglio’s participation in the inauguration became a political hot potato after a liberal blog publicized a sermon he gave some 17 years ago condemning homosexuality as a sin and offering harsh words about the “aggressive agenda” of gay activists.

Rather than provoke a fight, Giglio withdrew his acceptance of the invitation to pray.

Four years ago, Obama’s team stuck by the decision to have evangelical pastor Rick Warren give the benediction, despite criticism from progressives of Warren’s religious views opposing homosexuality.

This time around, however, the Presidential Inaugural Committee was quick to back away from Giglio. A committee spokesperson promised to replace Giglio with someone whose “beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”

JIM BOURG

REUTERS

Sasha Obama (C) peeks up as her father, U.S. President Barack Obama, bows his head for the benediction along with Vice President Joe Biden (2nd from R), first lady Michelle Obama (R), older daughter Malia (3rd from R) and the first lady’s mother, Marian Robinson (L), during swearing-in ceremonies on the West front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, January 21, 2013

Indeed, Giglio’s replacement, the Rev. Luis Leon, gave a benediction that invoked God’s blessings on “gay and straight” – echoing the support for GLBT equality pervading the entire ceremony.

From President Obama’s celebration of Stonewall (the 1969 protest that marked the beginning of the gay rights movement) to the selection of Ricardo Blanco, a gay Cuban American, to deliver the Inaugural poem, Obama’s second Inauguration sent a clear message that GLBT rights, including marriage equality, will be at the heart of the administration’s second term civil rights agenda.

Not surprisingly, many conservative Christian leaders and bloggers expressed outrage at the “withdrawal” of Pastor Giglio.

“This is another example of intolerance from the Obama administration to those who hold to biblical views on sexuality,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. “Are the scores of millions of Americans who affirm these teachings no longer welcome at the inauguration of our president?”

Ironically, many of the same religious conservatives who are decrying what they see as Obama’s litmus test for who prays at the inauguration are themselves in favor of litmus tests in other venues. For years now, conservative Christian organizers of National Day of Prayer events (including Perkins) have excluded all but those who accept their view of Scripture from leading the prayers.

The Giglio-inspired debate over inaugural prayers is yet another reminder of the perils of prayer on state occasions.

Truth be told, such prayers are almost by definition political in nature. The 2013 invocation and benediction, like most past inaugural prayers, sent clear social and political signals directed less to God and more to the listening public.

State prayers – like all manifestations of government-sponsored religion – have from time immemorial compromised authentic faith by serving the interests of the state. This, by the way, is why Thomas Jefferson wisely refused to issue presidential proclamations calling for national days of prayer and thanksgiving.

Moreover, in a pluralistic democracy no one can pray for everyone. Not all Americans can join with Myrlie Evers-Williams and say “in Jesus’ name we pray.” Even the most universal “to-whom-it-may-concern” prayers leave out the millions of Americans who don’t pray at all.

Although it is unlikely to happen, it would be healthier for religion – and for the country – if prayers during Inauguration Week were left to the various places of worship, allowing every American to pray (or not) as the conscience dictates.

For those who would mourn the loss of tradition, it’s worth recalling that the practice of inviting clergy to lead prayers at the swearing-in ceremony is a relatively recent innovation, dating back to President Franklin Roosevelt’s second inauguration in 1937.

As long as political leaders persist in mixing prayer and politics, we’ll just have to live with the fact that those who win elections get to determine what God hears from the Capitol steps every four years on Inauguration Day in America.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center and director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum in Washington.

Written by

  • jay2drummer

    Religious freedom includes the right to practice religion, even for elected officials. The inauguration is a ceremony honoring our president, a Christian, and if he wants to be blessed, as is his beliefs, then he has every right.

  • WouldaShoulda

    “Moreover, in a pluralistic democracy no one can pray for everyone. Not all Americans can join with Myrlie Evers-Williams and say “in Jesus’ name we pray.” Even the most universal “to-whom-it-may-concern” prayers leave out the millions of Americans who don’t pray at all. ”

    No it doesn’t.

    When I wish someone a Merry Christmas it is a salutation. Christmas exists whether the recipient of my greeting celebrates it or not, and they should be merry, not miserable or whine about being “excluded!!”

  • Kingofkings1

    What does the constitution say about this?

  • DOEJN

    That’s like saying “Enjoy your trip to Paris!” to someone who isn’t going to Paris. After all, Paris exists…

  • WouldaShoulda

    That isn’t an anology, it’s a non-secuitur!!

    Now, if I was in Paris and someone wished me a Happy Bastille Day…

  • jay2drummer

    It’s only Christmas if you celebrate it. Otherwise, it’s just another cold December day. It’s not a trip to France unless you’re going. Otherwise, it’s just another country.

  • SODDI

    Are you one of those people, who when you salute me with your “Merry Christmas” and I respond, “Happy Holidays” (which I say to everybody), immediately reverts to a resentful, weeny whiny b*tch boy because I “refused” to acknowledge your religious holiday sufficiently for your liking?

    Yeah, I thought so.