A religious occasion
Theo Hobson 8:38pm
I'd call what we watched on television earlier a religious ceremony – I suppose it might have been the biggest in history. In a sense it was rather like an church wedding – a religious ceremony with such an important secular function that one is apt to be a bit surprised when the vicar starts referring to God. The pastor who said the inaugural prayers, Rick Warren, was like an unexpectedly charismatic vicar at a wedding, refusing to be a mere holy prop. This 'religious bit' isn't ceremonial background, his big voice insisted. There was no retreat behind antique religious language, as you get in our grand occasions of state. There was plainness, directness, sincerity – a shocking lack of shame about public religion.
Obama fumbled his big lines like a bridegroom, bless him. But his speech was very fine. Like all good sermons it set out the problem (the sense of a sapping of American confidence) with slightly worrying realism, awkwardly brutal honesty. And then it gradually got the curative rheotric into gear. He invoked the 'God-given principle that all are equal, all are free', with a lovely civil-rights elongation of the 'all's. Towards the end there were echoes of Isaiah: 'old hatreds shall someday pass', we must work for 'a new era of peace'.
These prophetic echoes were repeated by the old black minister who said the final prayers: he nicely updated 'swords into ploughshares' into 'tanks into tractors', and quoted the Old Testament's most emotive line of all, about God's righteouness covering the earth like the waters cover the sea. When he spoke these words the camera cut to the new president, who, with closed eyes, moved his head slightly, as if drinking the heady words in. We live by this ancient prophetic vision, America was saying, with clarity and pride. If you think about it, this is remarkable.
The idea that religion and politics are separate things is a necessary fiction. America knows this better than us, on two fronts: it knows that legal separation is necessary, and it knows that the overlap of religion and politics must sometimes be openly asserted, for politics to be renewed. America has always known this, of course. But Obama has internalised the knowledge, built his political identity on it. He believes that the machinery of government can only do so much to fix social problems, what David Cameron calls the broken society. Its deep fixing will take a change of heart – religious rhetoric is appropriate. The British response at this point is to back off a bit, rhetorically, to remember with a tight smile that the machinery of government is all that a politician has at his disposal. Not so, says Obama's tradition: the politician also has rhetoric, which is no respecter of boundaries between politics and religion - and he has the right and duty to use it, to change the hearts of his hearers.
Previous
Prodicus
January 20th, 2009 9:07pm Report this commentMuch as I admire all this unashamed public prayer, I cannot reconcile the contradiction between today's ceremonials and the USA's very determined public condemnation of public prayers on other occasions.
Wilhelm
January 20th, 2009 9:21pm Report this commentI find Barak O'bimbo's speech patterns very irritating, he speaks about 3 words a minute in a clipped staccato delivery with a rising and falling cadence then pauses for 5 minutes before he screeeems '' Yes we can '' or '' Change ''.
Its hardly the Gettysburg address is it ? Plus it was nauseating to see Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow having an orgasmm while Barak was wittering on, giving out platitudes and banalities. Ho Hum.
Wilhelm
January 20th, 2009 9:25pm Report this commentBarak O'bimbo's speech was written by a 25 year old student slacker Jon Faverau.
The difference between Lincoln and Churchill, they had the intelligence to write their own speeches, they spoke from the heart unlike O'bimbo.
Craig Strachan
January 20th, 2009 9:34pm Report this commentObama didn't fumble his lines - Roberts fed him a jumbled oath.
Faceless Bureaucrat
January 20th, 2009 9:35pm Report this commentOddly enough, whilst I cannot see Brown identifying with much (if any) of the 44th President's visions or aspirations raised in this post, I CAN see DC being more than comfortable sharing them.
If Obama sees Brown as totally out of touch with his own views, Brown's isolation on the World stage coupled with increasing domestic anger directed at him in the UK might make Mandleson decide enough is enough and move to replace Brown for the good of the Party.
Perhaps all that talk of change was more thsn just a campaign slogan after all...
Juliana
January 20th, 2009 9:36pm Report this commentMy my, I wonder how many buses there were in Washington today with slogans on the side about their probably being no God. I bet Christopher Hitchens has been foaming at the mouth the entire day.
Juliana
January 20th, 2009 9:36pm Report this commentSorry, in my last it should have read 'there' being no God.
Bernard from Horsham
January 20th, 2009 9:42pm Report this commentYOu should see Marf's cartoon on Politicalbetting.com , it sumps it up perfectly
porkbelly
January 20th, 2009 9:58pm Report this commentThe religious spirit I felt was that of Jonestown as the rapturous throng, clutching their Koolaid cups, awaits their passage to eternity. What a cruel return to reality awaits us.
drakes drum
January 20th, 2009 11:20pm Report this commentJon Snow - didn't he support Bliar? - Isn't he related to Lord Longford once of this parish? - Has he ever done a proper job? - Did he wear his cowards (white) poppy this year?
Have the Americans got a new president?
Number 6
January 21st, 2009 2:17am Report this comment"The overlap of religion and politics must sometimes be openly asserted, for politics to be renewed"
You're quite right - public policy could be much improved by taking guidance from Deuteronomy.
biggestaspidistra
January 21st, 2009 6:09am Report this commentI thought it was wonderful. Shame on the nit-pickers and nay sayers. If only we had a British politician who could inspire.
Ronnie
January 21st, 2009 8:24am Report this commentWilhelm, I hope you get back to us when you've got something of substance to say.
Hawkeye
January 21st, 2009 8:30am Report this comment@Faceless Bureaucrat - What people often forget is that Obama is on the "left" of american politics. He is still somewhere to the right of Cameron. He shares no political commonality with Labour (esp. OLD Labour).
Now can we please have an Obama-free press for a week or two?
Paul B
January 21st, 2009 8:57am Report this commentReligious ceremony? I`m not sure. I see the event as similar to the public mass hysteria we got here in Britain at the time of Dianes`s drug drunken driver caused death. I find it all leaves very cold. I find it shallow and immature. Its as if people still need maternal figure to comfort them. Its a left wing thing imo, people need a comfort blanket, a nu nu for all of their life, whereas robust grown ups of the right realise, life aint always fair, its tough and you get out of it what you put in. None of this of course is Obamas fault. I wouldn`t have voted for him, but I believe in democracy and the people have spoken. Hes clearly a decent man,with good values. Hes iconic, a quite stunning orator. I love America and the American dream and all that it stands for. More than ever, we here in Britain and the rest of the world, need a confident, successful outreaching America. Therefore it would be churlish of me to wish anything other than the greatest good wishes to Obama. I wish him every success and large dollops of good luck. God Bless America.
Wily Trout
January 21st, 2009 9:19am Report this commentObama's speech delivery follows the style exomplified, if not pioneered, by Jeremy Clarkson, as does every BBC commentator nowadays.
Alfred T Mahan
January 21st, 2009 9:22am Report this commentThings can only get better?
That rings a bell...
CS
January 21st, 2009 9:57am Report this commentFlipped through 3 different British news channels last night to find something interesting. All three were showing a clip of Obama messing up the oath but they'd edited the stumbles out.
So we heard Obama saying: "I Barack Hussein Obama" and the sound immediately cut out to be replaced by some commentator saying something portentous. Then the sound was restored just in time to hear him finishing with: "So help me God."
Anyone think they'd have been this tactful with Bush? I suspect we'd have had 24 hour rolling comment on how he'd messed up the oath and whether this was a constitutional crisis.
Hermione Crouchback
January 21st, 2009 12:05pm Report this commentWatching it, I felt like I usually feel as a practising Roman Catholic when I attend Anglican services: the collection of pretty platidudes has an incidental similarity to reality but no intrinsic claim on the truth. It was benign sentiment masquerading as authentic political engagement.
Rivers
January 21st, 2009 12:28pm Report this commentThis pomp and expense may be difficult to justify later on. The Cilton inaguration was $33 million, George Bush's was $42 million, Obama's $163 million. This ceremony has not only the pomp of the crowning of a demi-God, it also has the lavish expense.
Senate Watcher
January 21st, 2009 1:10pm Report this commentNotice that Pastor Rick Warren did NOT mention how Obama's administration was going to unleash Federal Funded abortion on the evangelifish. May God bless them indeed..... ????
Wilhelm
January 21st, 2009 2:13pm Report this commentRonnie
Dont you like the truth ?
Can you not handle it, son ?
Augustus
January 21st, 2009 2:23pm Report this comment"Oh God, remind us that we are not Americans because of race, not because of religion, but because of freedom." Words spoken during the inaugural ceremony by a Christian preacher. And that's the difference between America and Europe; the US President is sworn in. Obama, the 44th president isn't just any normal president, he is Afro-American, and comes from an immigrant family from the Third World. But that doesn't mean that he grew up in poverty. He received an elite education. He received chances and challenges which he dared to take on. The pages of history of American civil war and apartheid are now closed for good. So Obama will be a special president, and not only because of his skin colour. The special circumstances in which America finds itself will make him a special president. That doesn't mean he will be a specially good president. It could go either way; he will either reduce the political and economic difficulties to manageable levels, or he will only make the political and economic crises worse. So he will be special either way, by good or by bad decisions.
Since the credit crisis began people have been comparing events to F.D.Roosevelt, the 32nd president. The Wall Steet crash and the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a major economic crisis. Many Americans had simply no money to even buy bread. in 1932 Roosevelt announced his 'New Deal', a programme designed to pull America out of the depression. But did the New Deal work? It seemed to work at first; unemployment went down to about 14%, but by 1937 things began to get worse again. Unemployment increased and in 1938 it reached a further 19%. According to the US Treasury Secretary at the time, Henry Morgenthau: "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"
The New Deal was in fact a rather bad and failed deal. It was really WW2 which saved the American economy. Everybody was kept busy and it created new opportunities for America both at home and abroad.
But now Obama wants to spend more money than ever. A reverse situation where not citizens, but the US Government is embarking on a trip to never-never land. To the tune of a trillion dollars. Saving the banks was right, but history shows that bailing out businesses with borrowed money never works. Market crisis become a national crisis. If Obama intends to depend heavily on the latter course, he will land everyone in the danger zone.
Forlornehope
January 21st, 2009 3:24pm Report this commentThere is an interesting piece in Scientific American on the possible evolutionary explanations for religion.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-religion-adaptive
Unlike Dawkins, who abandons Ockams razor too readily, this work takes religious behaviour as a product of evolution seriously. In summary it concludes that religion may be an important, if not essential, requirement for societies to function.
We had a very interesting controlled experiment between the effects of socialism and democracy on near identical societies in the two Germanies. We can now see how the UK and the USA continue to progress with our different approaches to religion.
By the way, none of this has the slightest bearing on whether any of it is true!
Michael Booth
January 22nd, 2009 9:08am Report this commentWasn't it a Bourbon king of Naples who said, ' Give the people bread and circuses' and they'll put up with anything? Swop bread for Big Macs and some out of tune warbling by Aretha Franklin and you've got it...
Verity
February 9th, 2009 2:26pm Report this commentProdicus, who writes, " I cannot reconcile the contradiction between today's ceremonials and the USA's very determined public condemnation of public prayers", do you honestly think that Americans as a country have abandoned their Christian roots and faith in God? Have you ever been to the US? There are groups of noisy leftists and atheists who condemn prayer, as there are here and in other countries.
The United States is still "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all". Don't be so silly.
Theo refers to "Obama's tradition". You're 'avin' a bit of a larff, innit! Obama has no "tradition" except trading in the dark, back alleyways of Chicago politics. The man's a fake and a scoundrel, like Tony Blair. Where does this supposed "tradition" come from? His boyhood with his step family in Indonesia? His life with his mother in Hawaii? What is this "tradition" you refer to?
Verity
February 9th, 2009 2:42pm Report this commentAugustus writes: "Obama, the 44th president isn't just any normal president, he is Afro-American, and comes from an immigrant family from the Third World."
Where to begin? He's not "Afro-American". They were the people taken by force to America, transported across the Atlantic in chains, and sold as slaves, which they endured for around 200 years. The traditions, the horrendous suffering, the creativity, the intelligent long-term planning for eventual freedom, set them apart from carpetbaggers who happen to be black and have been fortunate enough to get a Green Card. Obama's not from "an immigrant family". His white mother was from Kansas, for God's sake! Not too many plantations in Kansas!
And his father was not an "immigrant". He was a carpet bagger. He got a scholarship to get a degree at Harvard, which he did, before buggering off back to Africa. Deserting his "wife" (if he ever married her) and baby son, who was born in Hawaii, an American state.
How does this make them "an immigrant family from the Third World"?
Back to top