# It's my inauguration and I'll pray if I want to **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431 "2005-01-12T20:10:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/1 "2005-01-12T20:10:13Z")
Remember Michael Newdow? The atheist who challenged the use of the words “under God” as used in the pledge of allegiance ----- well Newdow is back. This time Newdow has filed suit claiming that any prayer offered at the Presidential inauguration is a violation of the establishment and exercise clauses. From _The Washington Times_ > [@](#): > > A California atheist’s lawsuit to prevent Christian clergy from praying in the presidential inauguration should be dismissed because it is a recycled case about an issue that does not violate the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for President Bush said. > > “There is no reason to ‘reverse course’ and abandon a widely accepted, noncontroversial aspect of the inaugural ceremony after over 200 years of this proper solemnization of a national event,” the president’s attorneys said in a 65-page response to the suit…. > > …In his lawsuit, Mr. Newdow said a benediction and convocation by Christian ministers at the inauguration violates the establishment and exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”… > > … Mr. Newdow has asked the court for injunctive relief, a ruling that would take effect in time to be enforced at the inauguration. … Mr. Newdow argued in his lawsuit that there is a distinction between prayer in government chambers and prayer at a presidential inauguration. > > “This is the most important public ceremony we have in our public existence, the inauguration,” he wrote. “This is public, not just for [lawmakers].”… > **[Bush team brushes off atheist’s lawsuit](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/10/20050110-095925-1503r/)** > > A California atheist’s lawsuit to prevent Christian clergy from praying in the presidential inauguration should be dismissed because it is a recycled case about an issue that does not violate the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for President Bush said. Note that Newdow is a lawyer so maybe I’m missing some ‘Newdow nuance’ - but right now his case appears to be extremely weak. Notice that Newdow makes some effort to distinguish “prayer in government chambers and prayer at a presidential inauguration.” Therefore, I suppose this is where his case rests. Yet ----- unlike publicly funded prayers before legislative bodies, which have been held constitutional, Presidential inaugurations are paid for with private funds – and so would be the remuneration for the clergy giving the prayer - I would think. Certainly nothing there that would add to his position. On Newdow’s last point – where he attempts to draw a distinction between prayer given at an inauguration and before a legislative body – I just don’t get it. Even if the inauguration is “the most important public ceremony we have in our public existence,” I fail to see his point. WE’ve done it for 200 years. We pray bbefore sessions of the Supreme Court, in Congress, in State legislatures. Yet, Newdow is a lawyer. So I’m left to wonder if there is any real chance for Newdow’s case — if there is, I don’t see it from what I know of it. Honestly, I think Newdow should know better in this instance ---- unless, of course, Newdow’s ambition is to become America’s best know living atheist - and starting his own gold coin collection. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Biggles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/839c29/32.png) [@Mr.Biggles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Biggles)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/2 "2005-01-12T20:37:12Z")
The inauguration prayer is should not even an issue. I feel the prayer, or whether the inauguree puts his hand on a Bible to say the oath, as something the individual being inaugurated can choose to do. Nobody is required to attend an inauguration; nobody is forced to say prayers. If we were to elect an atheist he could choose to skip the religious stuff, a Zoroastrian could celebrate with a fire puja, a Rastafarian could play some Bob Marley music and smoke ganja. That’s good enough reason to elect a Rastafarian. Any third party takers on this one? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/3 "2005-01-12T20:48:47Z")
Same old same old. It is not enough for some people not to be forced to pray. They want to prevent other people from praying as well. If Newdow doesn’t want to participate in the prayers at the inauguration, he doesn’t have to. But he doesn’t get to prevent anyone else from doing so if they want. He can go pound sand, as usual. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/4 "2005-01-12T20:52:21Z")
I don’t think that there is a prayer for this lawsuit being successful, but I’ve got to say – this Newdow fella is one hell of a smart person. My heart disagrees with him on this issue (and on the pledge), but I can’t help thinking that he has a point when I hear him make his case. What’s more, he delivered the most crusing TV debate victory I have ever witnessed when some Fox News punk tried to corner him in an interview last week. I really thought that the anchor – I don’t know his name, he has a rather swarthy complexion – has going to cut the segment short out of sheer embarassment after all his mindless Crossfire-style questions where systematically shot down. That was great. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/5 "2005-01-12T21:18:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Same old same old. > > It is not enough for some people not to be forced to pray. They want to prevent other people from praying as well. > > If Newdow doesn’t want to participate in the prayers at the inauguration, he doesn’t have to. But he doesn’t get to prevent anyone else from doing so if they want. > > He can go pound sand, as usual. > > Regards, > Shodan Interestingly, I’m with **Shodan** on this one, where we’ve been opposed on several other religion-interfacing-with-government issues in the past. There’s a reason underlying why we have both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses in the Constitution – and it shouldn’t be too hard for experienced GD Dopers to figure out what it is. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/6 "2005-01-12T21:19:17Z")
Well, he _does_ have a point. A very strict interpretation of seperation would mean just what he says. Any public ceremony that tacitly accepts the notion that the God of the Jewish/Xtian tradition is _the_ God is in violation of that principle. But it conflicts with an unwritten tradition of tolerance that I regard as more important. I can accept the notion of “ceremonial deism” as a worthy compromise. I can accept invocations as a part of the presumed seriousness of ceremonies, even as I chuckle at the notion that God Almighty might have penciled in “Time off to listen to prayers at inauguration of my beloved George” in His divine schedule. The spotlight on this prickly guy is not whether or not his case has merit, the spotlight is on him so that the Bushiviks can take credit for protecting America from secular atheist elitist liberals. Right or wrong, his case is going nowhere, and everybody knows it. But it serves the interests of the Bushiviks to claim credit for defending God, apparently on the assumption that He needs them to. One would imagine a brisk application of boils or frogs would quickly sort the matter out to His satisfaction. (While I’m at it - Lord, could we have Mark Twain back? We really, really need him and Al Franken just won’t cut the mustard…) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/7 "2005-01-12T21:27:32Z")
I **despise** “ceremonial deism” – it offends me both as a liberal and as a Christian. But the only two people _obliged_ to participate in the inauguration of a President are the President-elect himself and the person he asks to receive his oath. And if he wants public prayer over him, well, then, so be it. It’s his privilege. (And, perhaps, his reward, according to Scripture.) Me, I’ll be praying that he comes to some knowledge of what Jesus Christ expects of him, and acts on it, instead of playing along with whatever a piece of his support base wants, whether or not it’s true that he agrees with them and thinks their prejudices are His as well. I invite anybody whose personal integrity won’t be offended by doing so to join me, come noon eight days from now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/8 "2005-01-12T21:32:33Z")
“You have reached the Lord God Almighty. We are experiencing an unusually high volume of prayers at the present time…” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/9 "2005-01-12T21:40:00Z")
An oddity to report. I saw about an hour ago a blurge on _Drudge Report_, highlighting what was purported to be excerpts from a series of long interviews GeDubya gave to reporters from the _Washington Times_…(yes, that’s the one…the Moonie Press…) It contains a couple of quotes about how a President would have to have a personal relation with Jesus, followed by a disavowal of ever having said that a non-religious person could not be patriotic, but ending with the somewhat scarily ambiguous tag-line “but that’s the way it is.” I would quote more extensively, but it has vanished! poof! from the ol’ Drudgerino as though it never wert! Curiouser… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/10 "2005-01-12T21:59:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, he _does_ have a point. A very strict interpretation of seperation would mean just what he says. Any public ceremony that tacitly accepts the notion that the God of the Jewish/Xtian tradition is _the_ God is in violation of that principle. But it conflicts with an unwritten tradition of tolerance that I regard as more important. But how would a strict interpretation of “seperation [of church and state]” even come into it? There isn’t any law or clause in the constution that uses that wording. A strict interpretiation of the **1st amendment** would quickly show that Congress didn’t make any laws here, so everything is A-OK. I realize you are advocating tolerance here, and that you are NOT suggesting the prayer should be disallowed. It’s just that there are plenty of people out there who probably do believe the constitution has a seperation of church and state clause in it. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/11 "2005-01-12T22:03:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Same old same old. > > It is not enough for some people not to be forced to pray. They want to prevent other people from praying as well. > > If Newdow doesn’t want to participate in the prayers at the inauguration, he doesn’t have to. But he doesn’t get to prevent anyone else from doing so if they want. > > He can go pound sand, as usual. > > Regards, > Shodan I agree with **Shodan**. Prayers at public events are a time-honored tradition in our country and ought not to be prevented by one crazed loner. One has to pick one’s battles, and all Newdow is accomplishing is to stir up the nutcase Jeezer Right. That didn’t work out so well with gay marriage, so I’d just as soon Newdow shut his damn fool mouth and let them go back to sleep. Besides, on the assumption that God exists, over the next four years America can use all the prayers it can get. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/12 "2005-01-12T22:10:41Z")
Well, if nothing else, this thread has gotten some here to pray. I consider my work here done – ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/13 "2005-01-12T22:11:10Z")
I’ll add that I do agree with Newdow on the Pledge issue, although I’d put it pretty far down on the priority list of “things needing immediate attention in the US”. In this case, he’s just wrong. The OP got it right-- in the title. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/14 "2005-01-12T22:13:00Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Well, if nothing else, this thread has gotten some here to pray. I consider my work here done – Moderators, can I be forgiven the use of a rolleyes in GD for this one? ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/15 "2005-01-12T22:39:29Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Moderators, can I be forgiven the use of a rolleyes in GD for this one? Aaah – a thrashing via the rolleyes. I retract!!! ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/16 "2005-01-12T22:55:24Z")
I really want to argue Newdow’s position, even though I completely disagree with it–GD is a creepy, creepy, place when everyone agrees like this… ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/17 "2005-01-12T22:59:54Z")
Newdow is my hero. The inauguration is not supposed to be a religious event. The president should go pray in a closet like Jesus told him to. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/18 "2005-01-12T23:49:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **John Mace** : But how would a strict interpretation of “seperation [of church and state]” even come into it? There isn’t any law or clause in the constution that uses that wording. True, but Jefferson did elaborate on it elsewhere. At any rate, since the government is not footing the _forty million dollar bill_ for the inauguration, they can say whatever they want…or, at least, Bush can _try_. I did hear that crosses are not being allowed in the parade. (Yes, I’m serious.) ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/19 "2005-01-13T00:04:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Newdow is my hero. The inauguration is not supposed to be a religious event. The president should go pray in a closet like Jesus told him to. Yes but this thread deals with a legal question and legally Newdow doesn’t have a case. I say as a free person Bush should pray wherever he feels is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431/20 "2005-01-13T00:06:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > True, but Jefferson did elaborate on it elsewhere. > > At any rate, since the government is not footing the _forty million dollar bill_ for the inauguration, they can say whatever they want…or, at least, Bush can _try_. > > I did hear that crosses are not being allowed in the parade. (Yes, I’m serious.) Jefferson coined the “wall of separation between church and state” but any cursory examination of USSC decisions will show that such thinking has been revised by the court, and a lot of the revision happened in the 20th century. So in general the court is okay with government doing certain religious things under certain circumstances. And in our common law system precedent would definitely suggest they are more than okay with this. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-my-inauguration-and-ill-pray-if-i-want-to/284431.md?page=2)