nykola.com | bothering people since 1981

« Contrary to Popular Belief, This Site Hasn't Gone to Collections | Main | Caught in a Fashion Faux-Pas: The Modified Mullet »

January 20, 2005
The Presidential Inauguration Benediction

Just got finished watching President George W. Bush's inauguration. I won't comment fully on his speech yet because I need to read the transcript first. Despite great content, you may recall my frequent inability to stay focused when our dear president gives formal addresses. I need Bush's typical Southern twang and mispronunciation of words to keep me engaged.

What I will comment on is the benediction. If I had to sum up my sentiments of Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell's prayer in one sentence, I'd say, "Now THAT WILL PREACH." With much respect to Franklin Graham, and those who've delivered the benediction in the past, I'd say Rev. Caldwell's words were more unadulterated than benedictions past. In it, Caldwell called Americans to be held accountable to their purpose in life. He also sought repentance on our behalf for exalting partisan politics above the God of the universe (haven't I been saying this for months?).

I especially appreciate that he ended his prayer "In the name of Jesus". To many that may not be significant, but in the era of vigilant opposition to the very name of Jesus, I take great courage in seeing people in high places who quite simply, don't care what fickle Americans think.

I've always greatly admired Rev. Caldwell, pastor of Houston's Windsor Village United Methodist Church (probably the most unorthodox United Methodist Church in the entire country). He's remained a close personal friend and spiritual advisor to the president throughout the last four years.

Many may recall that Rev. Caldwell gave the benediction four years ago as well. He caught a bit of backlash at 2001's inauguration because he ended his prayer with the words, "Let all who agree say, Amen."

Many found this to be offensive for its exclusion of those who "don't believe". Nevermind the fact that the word "Amen", which loosely translated means "it is so", is itself a statement of affirmation and agreement. Americans just like to complain. If you don't agree, don't say Amen. It's really not that deep.

The Houston Chronicle reported:

The first time the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell took the stage at the close of a presidential inauguration, his prayer caused more of a stir than he intended.

That was 2001 and the official start of President Bush's first term. Caldwell called on a God of "peace, prudent policy and nonpartisanship," and asked for an end to inequities of wealth and education.

He offered his "humble prayer in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ."

And he ended by saying:

"Let all who agree say, Amen."

For some, that was the rub.

What about those who don't consider Jesus as the name above all others, the critics asked?

Rev. Caldwell chalked up his mistake to "public prayer naiveté". This time around, he seemed flawless enough not to ruffle the feathers of America's easily offended citizens.

Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed the suit by atheist Michael Newdow, ruling that a public prayer would not cause the plaintiff any harm. Newdow previously contended that separation of church and state should warrant that prayer is inappropriate at an inauguration. Newdow appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Newdow is also one of the weaklings leading the fight to remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

Nineteen-year-old columnist Hans Zeiger hit the nail on the head in January 11th column "Michael Newdow Against America":

I would contest that more than anything Bush has done as president, and more than any other gesture that could be made at the Inauguration, the invocation of Almighty God is the surest defense against tyranny. Those who claim that Bush is a despot do so not only erroneously, but also without regard to the fact that the other thing he is loudly criticized for – his faith – is the most reassuring guard against him becoming a despot.

An atheist, whose god is himself, has no right to replace the principles of our national founding – that our rights come from God and our laws are subordinate to "the laws of nature and of nature's God" – with his own religious principles. It is one thing to have the benefits of private conscience which have their expression in the Declaration of Independence; it is quite another to impose private conscience on the whole land. Neither a Christian, who would define God by the Bible, nor an atheist who would define god as himself, has the right to rule other men by religious coercion.

Here's to four years of liberty, and Americans taking enough responsibility to connect their actions with consequences.

Posted by Ambra at January 20, 2005 9:32 AM

Comments

I am so glad instapundit linked to your blog. I haven't read much of it but have enjoyed everything so far. You have style.

The BP

Posted by: Bass Pundit at January 20, 2005 11:44 AM

For the libs, the Day From Hell. The President for whom they worked so hard to become unemployed-carving up every sacred cow. Followed by an invocation from a black preacher- with a reference to personal responsibility. Not to mention numerous uses of the "G" Word- three words, ends in "d-" in both addresses. Too many protests among them, too few participants, too limited results. Pure torture for them.

Posted by: Gerard E. at January 20, 2005 12:01 PM

If your faith is so strong, why do you need it reaffirmed in the pledge of allegiance?

Posted by: Oliver at January 20, 2005 12:20 PM

Oliver: If your faith is so strong, why do you feel threatened by God's presence?

Posted by: Ambra Nykol at January 20, 2005 12:43 PM

Oliver,

Why do you think that pledge is a reaffirmation of faith? Seems to be it's an acknowledgment of God’s providence and will … then some sort of affirmation of the speaker's faith. Even if you take into account the motives of the legislators that added this line, it seems consistent with a 'humbling acknowledgment,' then an affirmation of faith.

Given the context of the pledge, and the context of the speech from which this contested line came from ...

"It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

I don't understand your objection.

Posted by: Justin at January 20, 2005 2:56 PM

Good post, Ambra. I wonder if atheist Michael Nudow merely cringed or actually passed out?
OLIVER: Having God's name in the pledge (or anywhere else) is not an affirmation of faith, it is a aknowledgement of who He is and what he means to us, personally and as a nation.

Posted by: marcus at January 20, 2005 2:58 PM

Oh, BTW, OLIVER WILLIS: Why don't YOU allow comments to your spurious posts, like the one of Judy Bacharach lying to Bridgette Quinn? Liberals are too thin-skinned to take the heat.

Posted by: marcus at January 20, 2005 3:16 PM

Great points Ambra! I didn't hear the innaguration (I was working) but now I wish that I had.

Posted by: Mark La Roi at January 20, 2005 3:17 PM

Oh...THAT'S why there's a preview button!

i-n-a-u-g-u-r-a-t-i-o-n.

Posted by: Mark La Roi at January 20, 2005 3:20 PM

Why are you guys so happy to see Bush back in office. I have to admit I would rather have him than "Hanoi John." As a very conservative Christian who doesnt even watch much television due to the smut on it, I am just not too thrilled having Bush as president.

Posted by: shari at January 20, 2005 3:27 PM

"A very conservative Christian who doesn't even watch much television due to the smut on it" --- yet you're on the internet? Ha. Ironic.

What exactly makes you not too thrilled having Bush as President? Did something disappoint you? What's wrong with being happy that someone you mostly agree with won, over someone you mostly disagree with? What are your reasons as a 'very conservative Christian' to not be at least decently happy with Bush?

Posted by: Justin at January 20, 2005 4:49 PM

I too really appreciated Pastor Caldwell's Benediction. And I loved his energy and verve - the fact that he seemed almost ready to jump for joy in prayer.

And he reminded me of a coach calling upon the Almighty to go in there and win the game! ;-)

Posted by: TheAnchoress at January 20, 2005 5:18 PM

My impression was that today's prayer was even stronger than it was last time.

Jesus Christ=Lord=God=Divine=Supplier of our morals, values, liberty and yes constitution. Bless Bush and America!!!

Posted by: Andy at January 20, 2005 5:35 PM

I don't feel threatened, I just think that America is for everyone... not just Christians. The Christians I know (like my Mom, though I'm not one) don't seem to need to have their faith parroted to them 24/7. They don't run through life saying "what am I again", only to have something in public scream "You're a Christian" in order to remind them. Personally, I consider myself agnostic. I think there's a design to the universe, but I feel its presumptous for anyone to say his or hers is the real one.

marcus: posting on my site is open and easy. as ambra, she posts there from time to time. sheesh.

Posted by: Oliver at January 20, 2005 7:39 PM

If Newdow’s disbelief is so strong, why does he need his secularist views reaffirmed in everything to prevent his panic attacks? Somebody pass this man his Valiums.

Posted by: Scooter at January 20, 2005 9:51 PM

OLIVER: My bad, bro. I didn't see a way to post amidst the clutter (that's not an insult btw, your site is just very full)

Posted by: marcus at January 21, 2005 1:02 AM

Amen! :)

Posted by: Janna at January 21, 2005 6:48 AM

to justin:

Yes I am on the internet and I am very conservative. I am on the internet because I visits: christian blogs, billy grahms website, apologetics websites, christian news services, information about homeschooling my child, shopping for my husband.

I am not to thrilled with bush because of his Iraq war, his support of civil unions, his appointment of homosexuals to positions of power in government, the department of justice for arresting christians for preaching against homosexuality at an "outfest" in philidelphia, mandatory mental testing for children in school, and national id cards, need I go on

Posted by: shari at January 21, 2005 1:13 PM

No, its pretty clear what a hateful bigot you are. Stop while you're behind.

Posted by: Oliver at January 21, 2005 8:55 PM

I just started reading for your blog comments as I recently started my own. Now I'm reading everything as I find the time. Thank you Instapundit. Your "Author" ccomments are terrific. Anyway this is a great blog and I look forward to all your future entries, Good Luck and God Bless, David.

Posted by: David at January 22, 2005 10:26 AM

Im a "hateful bigot" because i dont support homosexuality and the war in iraq? i dont know how you came up to that comclusion.
In regards to the issue of same sex marrige bush says one thing and does another.
Of course america isnt just for christians but you have to be ignorant to not admit it was founded by people who were Christians, and yes there were some deists. Heres some history for you, high atop of the Washington Monument are the following words: Laus Deo's. Which is Latin for "Praise be to God"
I dont need my faith parroted on tv, but i dont want unbelievers to tell me that as a christian i dont have a right to publicly express those beliefs.
its a common thing to be labeled "homophobic", which is an irratinal fear of homosexuals or "hateful" to speak against homosexuality. But you dont know me and to say I am hateful is ridiculous, I have a loving homemaker, daughter, and friend.

Posted by: shari at January 22, 2005 10:56 PM

SHARI: Pay no attention to Oliver. He's just a troll trying to stir up trouble. You cannot win an intellectual argument with someone who operates soley on emotions.

Posted by: marcus at January 24, 2005 7:10 AM