By Renee Sessions (UWIRE)
On Jan. 20, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. Aside from its historical significance, however, the inauguration is kindling a host of other concerns for college opinion writers.
From using ‘God’ in the oath of office to the lavish parties during an economic crisis, college opinion pages are abuzz with Inauguration Day debate. Click below for some of the most heated topics.
Is choosing divisive Warren a snub to gays?
Rick Warren the wrong reverend for invocation
Source | Michigan Daily
Barack Obama and reverends just don’t mix. An interview with Beliefnet.com epitomizes why some want Obama to choose another pastor. In this interview, Warren makes the conclusion that marital incest, polygamy and “an older guy marrying a child” is equivalent to same-sex marriage. But what surprised me is that before he made this gay-marriage, older-guy marrying-a-child comparison, he asserted that he believes in “full equal rights for everyone in America,” including partnership benefits. Warren has abused his mantle in the public arena to a degree that is reprehensible, and I cannot stand behind him as the invocation speaker. Read more.
Rick Warren an unjust choice for inauguration
Source | The Oracle
By choosing Rick Warren, tt is unforgivable for Obama to put political posturing above eliminating divisiveness between groups. Inviting a polarizing figure flatly opposed to taking into account the opinions a minority of the population does nothing to further inclusiveness or tolerance. Appealing to the majority rather than applying universal principles of justice and equality is no more reasonable in the hypothetical than it is in Obama’s very real invitation to Warren. Read more.
A choice reflecting post-partisan Christianity
Source | Harvard Crimson
While some have charged that Obama is merely pandering to the Religious Right with his selection of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation, the truth is that Warren’s selection symbolizes Obama’s hopes to move into a post-partisan dialogue for Christian believers and skeptics alike. By reaching out to evangelicals on these broader economic and social issues, secular liberals can create a much larger coalition behind a progressive agenda, and evangelicals can feel like they are not compromising the Biblical roots of their faith. Read more.
Is using ‘God’ in oath a breach of The Constitution?
First Amendment upholds God’s place in government functions
Source | Daily Illini
The value of someone’s oath under the name of God is deemed by some to be a solid and grave commitment to whatever the oath is pertaining to. This sort of bond primarily derives from the thought that God will oversee all doings related to the oath and will, consequently, hold people responsible for their actions. The fear of God’s judgment pressures many people to remain conscious of courtroom oaths, public office commitments and any other pledges they make under God. With the help of this continual fear of judgment, I believe it is perfectly sound and entirely supported by the First Amendment for people to have the right to take judicial oath, public office or other commitments under the name of God, if they so choose. Read more.
Government’s use of ‘God’ not a sin
Source | Daily Bruin
A lawsuit filed on Dec. 30 demands that the phrase “so help me God” not be added to the end of the president’s oath of office. Michael Newdow, who filed similar suits over the 2001 and 2005 inauguration ceremonies, is joined by groups advocating atheism and religious freedom. The new lawsuit argues that “there can be no purpose for placing ‘so help me God’ in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists.” This argument is overblown and interprets a formality in speech as an attack on personal rights. While Newdow believes that there can be no other purpose to the utterance of “God” but the affirmation of God’s existence, I am inclined to believe that there is a symbolic significance in such an invocation. Read more.
Religious oaths are unconstitutional
Source | Kansas State Collegian
According to the Constitution of the United States, the president must swear or affirm dedication to the office. The term ’swear’ correlates with ‘oath,’ which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as a “declaration invoking God … or other object of reverence.” An object of reverence can be anything, religious or not, and the Constitution clearly does not require any religious text be involved. Every president except Theodore Roosevelt has sworn an oath over the Bible in the public inauguration ceremony. Such interference of religion in politics should not be tolerated and is a direct violation of the Constitution. The people of the government, while governing, must use the Constitution and not the Bible as their text of reference. Read more.
Are planned inaugural festivities too excessive during recession?
Inauguration excess better spent elsewhere
Source | The Daily Athenaeum
The economy is in chaos, bailouts are afoot and hopeful senators are vying for seats left and right. But through all of our country’s various issues, we still can never quite resist a good party. For Obama’s inauguration celebration, Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty has estimated that it will cost the city some $47 million, while Maryland and Virginia have estimated their outlay at $12 million and $16 million respectively, according to the Association for Financial Professionals. Indeed, excess has always been a part of America’s DNA. America: the land of plenty, so on and so forth. Read more.
Inaugurating on a shoestring budget
Source | The Pitt News
It seems the presidential inauguration ceremony is above this economic recession, or somehow important enough that the American taxpayers should spend $40 million on what is clearly a second-rate Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. According to the Associate Press, the inauguration ceremony has employed quite a staff, including 432 staff members of the elusive Presidential Inaugural Committee. The origins of this shadowy group are difficult to track down, though I suspect it’s largely comprised of rejected contestants from “The Bachelor” who are desperately trying to relive the extravagance of their champagne and roses days. Only a former contestant of the “The Bachelor” would realistically request not one, not two, not even five, but 10 inaugural balls. Read more.
George Washington U. pays $85,000 for inaugural parade float
Source | The GW Hatchet
If you watch the inaugural parade next Tuesday, you’ll see the new president, marching bands, a JROTC group or two and a float that represents GW. Only, when I look at said float, I won’t just see the confusing mess everyone else will. I’ll see the $85,000 price tag. Obama promises to bring change to Washington, and I think we should be a part of that. Instead of an inauguration float, why not an inauguration scholarship? There would be no better way to support Obama’s “A New Birth of Freedom” theme than by giving the $85,000 to a deserving student who wants to be a part of that at GW. Read more.
Would it be better to attend the ceremony or watch from home?
Watching the inauguration, minus the mittens
Source | The Northeastern News
The Founding Fathers did a great job putting together the Constitution, if I do say so myself. But I cannot wrap my head around why they decided to make the Presidential Inauguration a ceremony held outdoors, in January. I can imagine George Washington addressing the Constitutional Convention, saying something like, “Well, sure I’ll lead your country, but you’re not swearing me in here in Philadelphia during this absurdly hot summer. Let’s wait a few months, until it really could not possibly be any colder.” Read more.
Top reasons not to go to the Inauguration
Source | Daily Illini
Almost every four years, Jan. 20 brings monumental transition for the nation, and this upcoming inauguration is obviously no exception. People have been counting down the hours to Inauguration 2009 since Nov. 2, 2004. Assuming this campus is no different, since Obama captured two-thirds of the 18-29 vote, I find it my responsibility to convince you why going to the Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20 will be a colossal waste of time, energy and money. Read more.
A mini college holiday, dorm subletters and other inaugural issues
Give students a mini-holiday for Obama’s inauguration speech
Source | Daily Bruin
For our country, and for 53 percent of us collectively, our New Year’s celebration begins on Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama will take his oath, deliver his inaugural address and enumerate his New Year’s resolutions for the nation. In the spirit of these resolutions-to-come, and in celebration of this new beginning for our country, I think we should have a mini-holiday from school. I propose that professors across campus cancel their classes during the hours of President-elect Obama’s inaugural address and give their students a chance to witness history as it’s happening. This would not just be a chance for students to skip out on class; instead, it is an opportunity to see the culmination of a campaign that changed the face of politics by acknowledging that we, the youth, and our ideas, really matter. Read more.
Students shouldn’t sublet dorm rooms for Inauguration
Source | The Eagle
With President-elect Barack Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration looming nearer, D.C. is preparing itself for record numbers of tourists. While the nation’s excitement is good news for the country, it poses a logistical challenge for those needing a place to stay — and profit-seeking residents are taking notice. If students try to sublet their dorm rooms and apartments to these travelers, they face serious risks. Rooms, houses and apartments are already posted on Craigslist and some have fetched thousands of dollars. Most hotels have stopped taking reservations; potential tenants are desperate and willing to pay. Students need to understand that renting out their apartments or dorm rooms to these random travelers is an absolutely terrible idea. Read more.
Inauguration Day should move to November
Source | Daily Toreador
Before 1937, Inauguration Day was March 4. According to CNN economic commentator, Barry Eichengreen, Hoover and FDR failed to cooperate during the president-elect period from November 1932 to March 1933. The depression was allowed to worsen in the power vacuum. As a result, a constitutional amendment was passed to move Inauguration Day to Jan. 20 which went into effect in 1937. Inauguration Day needs to move to November to prevent such presidential overlap. Read more.
This story was originally published by UWIRE