Prayer is challenged

By Editorial

The recent presidential election left the country divided, and it seems that the election results were not immune from some debate. Since when did a presidential inauguration cause controversy?

Well, apparently it has.

According to The Associated Press, the California atheist who tried to remove "under God" two years ago from the Pledge of Allegiance asked the Supreme Court to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.In an emergency filing, Michael Newdow argued that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

"The president will swear to uphold the Constitution and then violate the Constitution so heinously by endorsing these religious beliefs . . . and telling everyone this is a Christian nation," Newdow claimed in The Washington Post. He says the prayer will cause him physical harm.

Yeah, right.

It's not like a torpedo is going to physically knock the lost Christian into Newdow. If you don't want to participate in the prayer, then don't. In a theocratic nation, one wouldn't have that option.

We have to make choices every day. Like whether we want white bread or wheat. Are we going to complain every time that our personal preferences aren't automatically accepted?

We believe it is the president's personal choice to pray, and banning him from doing so would violate his right to religious freedom. Especially since it's his inauguration.

Bush's attorneys have argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was simply a personal choice which the courts have absolutely no power to prevent.

Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God.

According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in a Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other parents and children.

This is not the first time Newdow has filed a suit against the presidential inauguration, however. Unfortunately, his last attempt failed because he was only watching the event from television. This year, he decided to rectify that error and purchase a ticket to attend.

What we have here is a perpetual suer. We think the courts recognized this when two of them rejected Newdow's request to ban the inauguration's heavenly invocations.

Our question is, what's next on Newdow's list? A petition to remove all church signs and religious rhetoric from public places?

The fact is, we live in a pluralistic society with many beliefs. There is no doubt this nation was founded on some Judeo-Christian notions. However, someone else's beliefs aren't a violation of your own unless someone forces you to digest them.

And we doubt that President Bush would come all the way over to a blue state to make some guy that doesn't believe in God say a prayer.