Obama's Easter Message

[East of Eden]

"In a few short days, all of us will experience the wonder of Easter morning. And we will know, in the words of the Apostle Paul, “Christ Jesus...and Him crucified.�

It’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the triumph of the resurrection, and to give thanks for the all-important gift of grace. And for me, and I’m sure for some of you, it’s also a chance to remember the tremendous sacrifice that led up to that day, and all that Christ endured – not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.

For like us, Jesus knew doubt. Like us, Jesus knew fear. In the garden of Gethsemane, with attackers closing in around him, Jesus told His disciples, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death.� He fell to his knees, pleading with His Father, saying, “If it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.� And yet, in the end, He confronted His fear with words of humble surrender, saying, “If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.�

So it is only because Jesus conquered His own anguish, conquered His fear, that we’re able to celebrate the resurrection. It’s only because He endured unimaginable pain that wracked His body and bore the sins of the world that He burdened – that burdened His soul that we are able to proclaim, “He is Risen!�

So the struggle to fathom that unfathomable sacrifice makes Easter all the more meaningful to all of us. It helps us to provide an eternal perspective to whatever temporal challenges we face. It puts in perspective our small problems relative to the big problems He was dealing with. And it gives us courage and it gives us hope.

We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God’s plan relative to us, but that’s precisely when we should remember Christ’s own doubts and eventually his own triumph. Jesus told us as much in the book of John, when He said, “In this world you will have trouble.� Let me repeat. “In this world, you will have trouble.�

“But take heart! I have overcome the world.� We are here today to celebrate that glorious overcoming, the sacrifice of a risen savior who died so that we might live. And I hope that our time together this morning will strengthen us individually, as believers, and as a nation."



I thought that was very good, actually. Question for debate: Does anyone think that speech was inappropriate?

[100%atheist]

I don't have a problem if Obama and some of his friends holds a prayer breakfast as part of his personal time. But when it is supported as a government program, Obama is then acting as President and not as a private citizen. The Family that puts on this breakfast is a conservative Christian group that seeks to push Jesus on powerful politicians.

If this prayer breakfast is put on by a private family, then it is not a goverment endorsement of Christianity. It is Christians doing what Christians should do.

Why can't atheists just leave Christians alone? It's oppressive the obsession that materialists have with Christians.

It is because the US of America is not just your extended family of fellow Christians. The oppressive obsession is Christian, and I, as a non-Jesus-believer, am offended by the President bowing to a fictitious idol.

So you are declaring the death of the First Amendment?

THAT is what you are opposing.

No, I am not opposing the first amendment. Why did you make this false statement?

[Haven]

I couldn't care less about Obama's Easter message. It's irrelevant to me and to the well-being of this nation. Happy Easter.

Now, Obama's signing of the NDAA, failure to close Gitmo, and banning peaceful protests are another matter entirely.

[Quath]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

My worry would be that he would set up a club where you have to be Christian or pretend to be Christian to have the same advantages. It reminds me of a good ole boys club where guys would hang out after work and be all buddy-buddy. Then back in the workplace, the people of the club have extra benefits, get promoted more often and have more access to higher up management.

To respond to Quath, I do not believe this breakfast was put on or sponsored by "The Family." This was a White House event, unaffiliated with that particular religious group. There are other events called "prayer breakfasts", and some of those may be sponsored by the Family.

From what I can see, the breakfast was an invited event for a number of religious leaders.

Wikipedia has an article on this. Here is some of it:

The National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization more widely known as "The Family".
...
It is designed to be a forum for political, social, and business leaders of the world to assemble together and build relationships which might not otherwise be possible. ("[T]he breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can 'meet Jesus man to man.'")

So this sounds like a government operation in which Christians are rewarded with access to powerful people.

Any President meets with a lot of different "interest groups." I can understand that when such meetings occur, there is always the potential for criticism of showing favoritism or having some kind of conflict of interest. My measure would be whether the President provides access to a wide variety of groups, and is as transparent as possible with respect to items of discussion and how those might affect public policy. In this case, there is clearly transparency, even as some public policy issues were discussed subsequent to the short speech shown here.

When pagans, Muslims, atheists and Satanists feel equally welcome, then I would agree with you. I would rather have something like a "Breakfast of Thought" which applies towards all people.

Non-governmental organizations, including religiously affiliated ones, clearly have long played a role in issues like combatting AIDS and global hunger.

There are many secular ones that do the job just as well. I think the faith based initiatives are also unconstitutional.

I see Obama referred to the annual Easter Egg Hunt on the south lawn, which seems to go back at least to the Roosevelt era.

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/grounds/south-lawn.htm

I don't know. Should we abolish the Easter Egg Hunt as a violation of the First Amendment?

I know the media will pay attention to what he does and people like to see the President do things that the normal everyday person does. So as long as it is played as we are getting a glimpse into Obama's private life, then I am ok with it. I am ok with Obama having a prayer breakfast with some of his friends and it appearing in the news. I just don't like for it to be published as something that is done by the government as part of its job.

[micatala]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

He has used religion to sell Obamacare.

I am fine with a politician discussing his own religious motivation for supporting a particular policy, as long as the policy itself is not the imposition of a religious view. Health care reform clearly has a secular purpose and intent, and so, as a policy matter, is not in my view unconstitutional, at least for First Amendment reasons.

Bans on gay marriage, however, have no legitimate secular purpose or intent, at least not that can pass constitutional muster with respect to equal protection under the law. Therefore, in my view, such bans are unconstitutional. I would be fine with a proponent of such bans outlining their religious rationale, even if they were politicians. But, if they cannot also elucidate legitimate secular grounds for the law, then their argument should be considered illegitimate from a constitutional standpoint.

[micatala]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

My worry would be that he would set up a club where you have to be Christian or pretend to be Christian to have the same advantages. It reminds me of a good ole boys club where guys would hang out after work and be all buddy-buddy. Then back in the workplace, the people of the club have extra benefits, get promoted more often and have more access to higher up management.

I don't see that any sort of "club" is being set up here.

To respond to Quath, I do not believe this breakfast was put on or sponsored by "The Family." This was a White House event, unaffiliated with that particular religious group. There are other events called "prayer breakfasts", and some of those may be sponsored by the Family.

From what I can see, the breakfast was an invited event for a number of religious leaders.

Wikipedia has an article on this. Here is some of it:

The National Prayer Breakfast is hosted by members of the United States Congress and is organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization more widely known as "The Family".

I am aware of The Family and the National Prayer Breakfast. However, Obama's Easter Breakfast is a different event. I think you are confusing the two.

Any President meets with a lot of different "interest groups." I can understand that when such meetings occur, there is always the potential for criticism of showing favoritism or having some kind of conflict of interest. My measure would be whether the President provides access to a wide variety of groups, and is as transparent as possible with respect to items of discussion and how those might affect public policy. In this case, there is clearly transparency, even as some public policy issues were discussed subsequent to the short speech shown here.

When pagans, Muslims, atheists and Satanists feel equally welcome, then I would agree with you. I would rather have something like a "Breakfast of Thought" which applies towards all people.

I can certainly accept there should be some mechanism for fairly equal access. However, no such system is going to be perfect. IN addition, there has to be some reasonable limits on which groups are invited or have such events devoted to them. Minorities should be protected, but not every small group or sect can expect there own audience with the President.

Groups or organizations that do represent large contituencies are more likely to have this access. I grant that is perhaps not ideal, but again, if the purpose is not legal or legislative, I don't see that this is a huge problem. One cannot spend all one's time as President trying to avoid offending people.

Non-governmental organizations, including religiously affiliated ones, clearly have long played a role in issues like combatting AIDS and global hunger.

There are many secular ones that do the job just as well. I think the faith based initiatives are also unconstitutional.

I agree on the former. I disagree on the latter, but would say it depends on the nature of the relationship between the state and the given faith-based organization.

I see Obama referred to the annual Easter Egg Hunt on the south lawn, which seems to go back at least to the Roosevelt era.

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/grounds/south-lawn.htm

I don't know. Should we abolish the Easter Egg Hunt as a violation of the First Amendment?

I know the media will pay attention to what he does and people like to see the President do things that the normal everyday person does. So as long as it is played as we are getting a glimpse into Obama's private life, then I am ok with it. I am ok with Obama having a prayer breakfast with some of his friends and it appearing in the news. I just don't like for it to be published as something that is done by the government as part of its job.

I can see the concern. On the other hand, almost everything the President does is in some ways considered by at least some people as part of the job, or at least as part of being a politician.

[East of Eden]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

He has used religion to sell Obamacare.

I am fine with a politician discussing his own religious motivation for supporting a particular policy, as long as the policy itself is not the imposition of a religious view. Health care reform clearly has a secular purpose and intent, and so, as a policy matter, is not in my view unconstitutional, at least for First Amendment reasons.

Bans on gay marriage, however, have no legitimate secular purpose or intent, at least not that can pass constitutional muster with respect to equal protection under the law.

Your opinion only, especially as there is no SCOTUS decision supporting your view. Even Elena Kagan says there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage.

Therefore, in my view, such bans are unconstitutional. I would be fine with a proponent of such bans outlining their religious rationale, even if they were politicians. But, if they cannot also elucidate legitimate secular grounds for the law, then their argument should be considered illegitimate from a constitutional standpoint.

Nonsense. What religion would Congress be establishing if such a hypothetical law were passed?

[micatala]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

He has used religion to sell Obamacare.

I am fine with a politician discussing his own religious motivation for supporting a particular policy, as long as the policy itself is not the imposition of a religious view. Health care reform clearly has a secular purpose and intent, and so, as a policy matter, is not in my view unconstitutional, at least for First Amendment reasons.

Bans on gay marriage, however, have no legitimate secular purpose or intent, at least not that can pass constitutional muster with respect to equal protection under the law.

Your opinion only, especially as there is no SCOTUS decision supporting your view. Even Elena Kagan says there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage.

Therefore, in my view, such bans are unconstitutional. I would be fine with a proponent of such bans outlining their religious rationale, even if they were politicians. But, if they cannot also elucidate legitimate secular grounds for the law, then their argument should be considered illegitimate from a constitutional standpoint.

Nonsense. What religion would Congress be establishing if such a hypothetical law were passed?

On the latter, one does not need to establish an entire religion to violate freedom of religion. If a law like this stands, it establishes a religious view, which thus infringes on the rights of those who do not share that view. A long tradition of constitutional interpretation indicates a law whose primary purpose or effect it to establish a particular religious view is unconstitutional. As one example, the teaching of creationism, either the young earth variety or the updated "intelligent design" variety is unconstitutional. Same with gay marriage, unless you can show a secular purpose. If you wish to do that, we can go back to one of the other threads on that topic.

The former should probably also be discussed on another thread as well.

[East of Eden]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

He has used religion to sell Obamacare.

I am fine with a politician discussing his own religious motivation for supporting a particular policy, as long as the policy itself is not the imposition of a religious view. Health care reform clearly has a secular purpose and intent, and so, as a policy matter, is not in my view unconstitutional, at least for First Amendment reasons.

Bans on gay marriage, however, have no legitimate secular purpose or intent, at least not that can pass constitutional muster with respect to equal protection under the law.

Your opinion only, especially as there is no SCOTUS decision supporting your view. Even Elena Kagan says there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage.

Therefore, in my view, such bans are unconstitutional. I would be fine with a proponent of such bans outlining their religious rationale, even if they were politicians. But, if they cannot also elucidate legitimate secular grounds for the law, then their argument should be considered illegitimate from a constitutional standpoint.

Nonsense. What religion would Congress be establishing if such a hypothetical law were passed?

On the latter, one does not need to establish an entire religion to violate freedom of religion. If a law like this stands, it establishes a religious view, which thus infringes on the rights of those who do not share that view. A long tradition of constitutional interpretation indicates a law whose primary purpose or effect it to establish a particular religious view is unconstitutional.

What you propose is a violation of free expression of religion. You don't lose that freedom when you hold public office. You are attempting to ghettoize religious people outside of the public square.

As one example, the teaching of creationism, either the young earth variety or the updated "intelligent design" variety is unconstitutional.

Some Intelligent Design proponents are agnostic/atheist, and think life came from outer space, which kind of voids your argument.

Same with gay marriage, unless you can show a secular purpose.

Where is the SCOTUS ruling that supports your opinion?

[micatala]

I do not think it was inappropriate. My view is religious remarks, including by public officials, are protected speech and not against the first amendment, especially if they are not associated with public policy proposals. If the President was promoting a policy that had the primary purpose or effect of promoting his religious views, then I am much more likely to have a problem with that.

He has used religion to sell Obamacare.

I am fine with a politician discussing his own religious motivation for supporting a particular policy, as long as the policy itself is not the imposition of a religious view. Health care reform clearly has a secular purpose and intent, and so, as a policy matter, is not in my view unconstitutional, at least for First Amendment reasons.

Bans on gay marriage, however, have no legitimate secular purpose or intent, at least not that can pass constitutional muster with respect to equal protection under the law.

Your opinion only, especially as there is no SCOTUS decision supporting your view. Even Elena Kagan says there is no constitutional basis for gay marriage.

Therefore, in my view, such bans are unconstitutional. I would be fine with a proponent of such bans outlining their religious rationale, even if they were politicians. But, if they cannot also elucidate legitimate secular grounds for the law, then their argument should be considered illegitimate from a constitutional standpoint.

Nonsense. What religion would Congress be establishing if such a hypothetical law were passed?

On the latter, one does not need to establish an entire religion to violate freedom of religion. If a law like this stands, it establishes a religious view, which thus infringes on the rights of those who do not share that view. A long tradition of constitutional interpretation indicates a law whose primary purpose or effect it to establish a particular religious view is unconstitutional.

What you propose is a violation of free expression of religion.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

You don't lose that freedom when you hold public office. You are attempting to ghettoize religious people outside of the public square.

Again, how on earth did anything I say imply what you are saying here?

As one example, the teaching of creationism, either the young earth variety or the updated "intelligent design" variety is unconstitutional.

Some Intelligent Design proponents are agnostic/atheist, and think life came from outer space, which kind of voids your argument.

SCOTUS disagrees with you on young earth creationism. The Dover decision disagrees with you on ID.

And you have a fallacy here. Just because someone who is not religious agrees with a position that is religiously based does not make the position not religiously based.

Following your argument, if a municipality that was primarily Jewish decided to enact bans on eating shellfish within the city because it was part of their religious belief, and one atheist in the town thought that not eating shellfish was a good idea, then the law should not be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause. Does that really make any sense?

Same with gay marriage, unless you can show a secular purpose.

Where is the SCOTUS ruling that supports your opinion?

Well, I have explained in detail my argument to this question in another thread, where you ceased participating and as I recall never answered my response to your question. If you want to go back to that thread, I am more than willing.


The short answer is that I am making an argument that bans on gay marriage should be considered unconstitutional based on legal precedents regarding marriage and the general principles reflected in the constitution. We do this all the time in debate and discussion. The same kind of argument is being made by those who think the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. So far no SCOTUS decision. Should we tell those who make the claim of unconstitutionality that they have no basis for their argument since there is no SCOTUS decision yet?