The Inaugural Prayer - What's the Big Deal?

Hello All!

I was wondering what exactly is that guy's point in filing a lawsuit against the reading of a prayer at Bush's inauguration. Now, I've heard tings about the prayer violating his constitutional rights. As far as I know, religion is only mentioned in the First ammendment, which states that:

"Congress shall make no law regarding any establishment of religion...."

This, as far as I know, means that the government shall not make any law that endorses one religion over another, or reduce anyone's right to worship as they please. So in fact, doesn't that PROTECT Bush's right to have whatver prayer he wants at his inauguration? He is a religious man, and he probably wants to have a member of the clergy present at one of the most important days of his life, so should he not have the right to do so?

The guy (his name is Michael Newdon, I think) also said that this forces him to accept a belief other than his own (which is aetheism). Now, several problems with that. Firstly, he might as well ask that all the churches, mosques, and synagogues in his field of vision (as well as anything else religious) be taken down. After all, those pose a more immediate threat to his beliefs than a once-every-four-years-inaugural prayer.
Secondly, if his beliefs are so threatened by Bush's inauguration, then maybe he doesn't believe them as strongly as he thinks - and I am NOT trying to offend aetheists in general here, just questioning the strength of this ONE guy's beliefs.

I realize that there are many opinions on this, but please lets not turn this into a Bush-bashing, or Bush-promoting contest, or a session of condemning atheists to hell or something. I know I've sounded pretty negative towards this man in this post, but that just reflects my personal distaste for what I believe to be a pointless exercise that wastes time and serves nothing except this one person's continuing 15 minutes of fame

There are two other relevant parts of the first amendment that apply:

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

Michael Newdow is asking the government to infringe upon the President's rights to both the free exercise of his religion and his freedom of speech.

Ah, thanks djohnsto77, I hadn't thought of that at all. But yeah, the first amendment that he uses for his defense, is, I think, the most powerful defense of the practise of having this prayer.

What I am trying to understand is, what's his point? And why is it even being entertained in court? I think this is one of those cases where common sense needs to prevail. The fact that Christianity is prominently displayed in America is not because the government infriges on other religion's right to spread (or on people's rights not to believe at all), but simply because religious freedom EXISTS, and that most of the country does in fact, believe.

reply to post by Archangel76


Churches and synagogues, etc. are not the government. They are religious institutions that are supposed to be separate from government, and that is the point.