I think, for example, that the young pastor to whom I referred is actually offended by the idea of praying a prayer that nobody actually cares about. In praying in public, he wants to be praying for the group, and thus finds the idea of a generic prayer rather silly. He’d say that it’s OK for the atheists not to join in his prayer, but then why is he praying it in front of them, as though it’s with a for them?

I think our culture tends to put a heavier emphasis on the religious issue, probably largely because we are more religious. There are more public religious activities on your side of the pond, but in general, my understanding is that they are more a matter of form and culture. I could be wrong, of course. I don’t know this from personal experience.

It was pretty much standard for such a prayer to include the plea that the decisions of ALL the councillors be guided by God, and I don’t recall much noise from the three or four who were avowed atheists and none from the agnostics or the three who espoused non-Christian religions. I did, however, discuss the issue with a few of them, and broadly report that the non-Christian believers were perfectly happy to subscribe to prayer that God inform their decisions (as they’d happily pray that way themselves, and the atheists couldn’t be bothered to complain as it was meaningless to them and just one of those things which happens in life, much as having to endure elevator music.

None were particularly concerned about the form of words. In particular, none was concerned about the use of the formula “let US pray” imputing to them the words used. To the atheists, it was not a problem to them that the person praying was attempting the impossible, and indeed one mentioned that he translated the words into “engage your conscience NOW”… which was (he thought, and was right) pretty much the same kind of translation as the non-Christian believers were doing.

I suppose it’s fair to say that whatever flavour of faith was present, everyone there would qualify as a “liberal”.

Nevertheless, there are some similarities between the two situations. I’ve written about my personal approach to prayers for military & civic events in Chaplain Prayer at Military Ceremonies.

Re: public prayer in this situation, I have mixed feelings as well. If we elected a Jewish or Muslim president, I would not object to having a Rabbi or Imam lead prayer for the entire assembly.

OTOH, I can understand the viewpoint of those who see this as a violation of the separation of church and state.

What I object to, and it’s pretty much what you said in different words, is that whoever gives the invocation is LEADING THE NATION in prayer. That’s offensive to those of us who either believe differently or not at all. To have Obama (or anyone giving a religious prayer in a public, secular ceremony) state that he’s asking for the prayer for himself only would be easier to accept. But to be told that I’m being LED in prayer in MY country which was founded on the =separation= of church and state is telling me that I’m a second-class citizen unless I am a fully believing participant in that prayer. So, no, I do not think prayer at any government event is appropriate because it is NOT inclusive, but excludes.

Then we address the selection of Rick Warren. Some say it’s a brilliant political move, as it is a gesture of friendship to the religous right without giving them any real say in policy. But to me, it’s a gesture which, by its very nature as an honor, thus implicitly condones the positions that man holds. He’s against so much that I believe is right and fair, that I do not see his presence and actions as anything but a slap in the face of those Americans he hates.

There are many wonderful people of faith and openness that Obama could have selected for this honor. Rick Warren, in my opinion, is NOT among them.

c.