Jay_C see.. http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/12/30/a-more-correct-definition-of-tolerance/#comment-81387 and I say we apply it here. Inagural Prayer is a standing part of our American hertitage and culture. Just because these folks against the prayer are US citizens, doesn't mean they have the right to suddenly and abruptly demand a change to what is a standing part of our American Culture. They may not like it, and they have the right to disagree but consensus more than likely says the Prayer stays.. for now..

Claudia, Assistant Editor Jay_C that is an absolutely breathtaking twisting of the core point of the post and an appalling misuse of my own comment, so much so that I cannot let it stand without protest. The only way it could possibly fit is that your comment illustrates Michael's comment above, that "tolerance" and "integration" must not be taken to the extreme of "being the same as". How different are these two situations? Let me count the ways... - The people discussed in the other post are new immigrants. Non-religious Americans are natives to the land. They form as much a part of the identity of Americans as does everyone else. They are about 10% of the population, way more than Jews, to name one example. They are not apart from the American identity, they are a part of it. - The twisting of "core principles" into "inaugural prayer" is ridiculous. The core principles of the US are enshrined in our Constitution. That includes the part that separates church from state, in case you forgot. - "consensus" and "legal" are not one and the same thing. "In God we Trust" on our money is a promotion of religion and in my view unconstitutional. I don't know the precise arguments of the suit filed, but it is undoubtedly done under the presumption that the inaugural prayer constitutes a governmental promotion of religion. You can disagree with the premise, but popular opinion has exactly nothing to do with it. - The idea that opposing an inaugural prayer could in any way be equivalent to forcing women to be subservient to men astonishes me. That someone could be in favor of the inaugural prayer I can get, even that you could be irritated by someone wishing to remove it, but to see non-religious Americans lumped in with chauvinistic Muslim fundamentalists for daring to question the legality of a part of a ceremony shows me that, if anything, religion needs to be challenged more, not less. People must get used to the idea that religion is no more off limits for questioning than conservativism, environmentalism or any other position.

Jay_C Your exadurated points make me feel as though you are unwilling to accept that I have a differing point of view (becuase that is all it is, a point of view, I twisted nothing) I am saying that if we are saying that a new imigrant is to accept a new homeland’s culture, then by extension it stands that the majority of people in that country beleive and all (newbies and standing residents) should be held to the same standards of acceptance. Because one is a "newbie" in a country doesn't mean they should be held to any more or an less a standard than anyone else within that countries standing heritage. Somone that is new, has just as much rights as I have (there is no probationary period that I am aware of) In addition, I never said anyone (newbie or standing resident) should or shouldn't agree or disagree with their new countries standing culture or hertiage, just that they assimilatiate, recognize and uphold their new homeland’s culture and heritage.

Jay_C "The idea that opposing an inaugural prayer could in any way be equivalent to forcing women to be subservient to men astonishes me." I agree, who said I beleived they were equivalent? "“consensus” and “legal” are not one and the same thing." No, but consensus can and has led to law "“In God we Trust” on our money is a promotion of religion and in my view unconstitutional." Thanks for your view and opinion, but there it is none the less. I don’t know the precise arguments of the suit filed, but it is undoubtedly done under the presumption that the inaugural prayer constitutes a governmental promotion of religion. Thanks for your view and opinion, but there it is none the less. "You can disagree with the premise, but popular opinion has exactly nothing to do with it."" I agree, you can disagree wit the premise, I beleive public opinion can and has led to law and hence has a lot to do with it. If enough people agree to change the Constitution a certain way they can, through the proper channels of course.

Jay_C Also Claudia "culture" and "hertiage" can include laws and formal practices of the governement.

bobxxxx The recent atheist display in Washington would not have been necessary if Christian theocrats respected our constitution.

Naumadd Funny thing is, as a so-called "atheist", I don't expect that atheism be forced on anyone. Instead, I expect government functions that are clearly official follow the letter of the U.S. Constitution, you know, that pesky little document to which the incoming President is allegedly swearing to uphold and defend? It says in there something about restricting the establishment of any official religion. If individuals wish to say private prayers for themselves, that ought to be fine, however, the highest authority in the United States, contrary to the beliefs of many, isn't the jewish or christian or muslim god nor their respective religions, it's the Constitution of the United States which happens to our highest American values of inalienable individual rights and the guaranteed liberty to exercise self-determination. It is to these principles the Constitution adheres and establishes as law in our nation and it is to these principles the President of the United States swears fidelity to above all else in the performance of his duties and responsibilities. Any personal mention of religion out to be free, however, endorsement of any religion within the official ceremony itself is a slap in the face of all who believe a different philosophy and who practice differently. Barack Obama isn't becoming a President of Christians, he's becoming President of all citizens of the United States - a larger category than the first. It seems ironic and horrible that a new President would deliberately alienate a large portion of those he will serve in the process of performing his first official act. Michael Newdow is correct, the trappings of religion do not belong in the official process of inaugurating a new President of the United States. It sends a horrible first message to many of those who elected him to office by violating the Constitution in the process of swearing to uphold and defend it.

Naumadd @Jay_C It's the nature of a culture that, when new members are introduced from differing cultures, that culture is changed as much as the new member introduced. The new culture has no more right to dictate change in the new members than do the new members have right to dictate the culture change. Of course, dictating changes is silly. Change occurs whether you wish it or not and, ultimately, not matter in what direction you wish change to occur, change is never entirely within your control.

Jay_C It says in there something about restricting the establishment of any official religion." True, it does. and as far as I recall, there is no official religion in that document. Not sure where you were going with that? Lumping everyone that believes in God into the same bucket as "one religion" is just silly. And furthermore, I never said that what my position was on Separation of Church and State. I just said what is. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I believe you would need to change the majority of public opinion before the country as a whole would allow the sorts of changes that Militant Atheists demand happen because they say so. It is fine to want you uphold your interpretation of the law, there is nothing wrong with that (in fact I applaud it) but first, in order to change what you want to change, convince everyone else to somehow go along with you.

Jay_C "endorsement of any religion within the official ceremony itself is a slap in the face of all who believe a different philosophy and who practice differently. Barack Obama isn’t becoming a President of Christians " I'm catholic, I practice a different religion than Rick Warren (we are both Christins, but he is not Catholic) I do not in any way shape or form find this a slap in the face to me. If anything, it is a celebration of the Diveristy of religion that is allowed in this country.

Jay_C "Barack Obama isn’t becoming a President of Christians ” True again, but Rick Warren giving the invocation is no different (other than who the president is and who is giving the invocation)than has been done for many many years. (Hence my saying this is part of the American heritage and culture) I know that Atheists have been against an invocation in the past, but why all the extra hullabaloo this election year? Could it be that Obama isn't turing out to be as much the leftie as we all thought and that upsets some folks a tiny bit? Just a thought.

Jay_C "It’s the nature of a culture that, when new members are introduced from differing cultures, that culture is changed as much as the new member introduced. The new culture has no more right to dictate change in the new members than do the new members have right to dictate the culture change." Again we agree, and until the MAJORITY become Atheists or at least the majority of Americans agree that we should more closely scrutinize and discard any part of our current culture and heritage (or if this just evolves away from invocations over time at a more subtle level) then so be it, but RIGHT NOW, that is not the case, nor will it change in the near future I suspect. I beleive the people's collective will in time will deicide what we keep and what we toss aside.

Naumadd @Jay_C You're missing the point. As I said, "atheists" don't want you to change the law, they merely ask that you finally follow it. Religion has no official place in the inauguration of the President of the United States because to insert it officially is a violation of restrictions on an establishment of a religion. Mention of "god" is establishment not simply of one religion, its official recognition of at least three all at once, but in any case it is certainly not acknowledgement of ALL religions. There is no "god" in many of them. Even subtracting "atheists", "god" belief isn't universal.

Naumadd @Jay_C "If anything, it is a celebration of the Diveristy of religion that is allowed in this country." _________________________ Hardly. As I said, and quite despite the inauthentic claims otherwise, the "god" being inserted officially in various ways by our government is the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god. In some religions, though they have what you might call a "god" equivalent, their descriptions of it is very different, sometimes profoundly so. In other religions, the "god" is only one of many. In others, there is no "god" at all although it is a fully-formed and very old religion. The mention of a "god" does not represent religious diversity, it represents only those who hold to the "god" of judaism, christianity and islam. "God" belief isn't universal around the world and certainly not within the United States.

Naumadd @Jay_C "... this is part of the American heritage and culture" ____________ Would you concede that, tradition or not, it could nevertheless have always been a failure to abide by restrictions on the establishment of an official religion to, in fact, officially endorse a "god" belief in light of the fact many kinds of beliefs have existed and do exist within the United States. Arguing the fact it is tradition is no defense, and neither is arguing it's "what the majority want". On the issue of 1st amendment to the constitution, those stipulations have nothing at all to do with majority rule, they are about protecting individual choices and keeping the government representative of ALL rather than representative of an elite. Majorities in the United States have behaved elitist since the very beginning. The Constitution isn't designed to protect them. They need none because they, as the majority, hold much power. No, the Constitution is designed to protect the powerless from domination by the unthinking majority.

Naumadd @Jay_C " ... until the MAJORITY become Atheists or at least the majority of Americans agree that we should more closely scrutinize and discard any part of our current culture and heritage (or if this just evolves away from invocations over time at a more subtle level) then so be it" ________________________ But, of course, the decision on this matter was made a very long time ago when the Constitution was written. It explicitly restricted official recognition of only a narrow set of religious belief and practice. It in no way forced a change in traditions of the majority nor does it now. It merely sets the standard that government MUST be representative of ALL beliefs and ALL practices among ALL Americans in its official duties and responsibilities of, by, and for them. For a very long time, U.S. government has shown preference to the beliefs of the majority in very official ways when it has been a violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution to do so. Contrary to popular belief, U.S. government is designed to be representative of ALL, not simply the majority. It is the majority that elects government, however, once that government is formed, the Constitution requires to function as representative of ALL. That necessarily includes those who voted differently and those who believe and practice differently from the majority. Government dictatorship, religious dictatorship are banned in our culture. What many don't seem to understand is, dictatorship of the majority is also banned within the letter and spirit of the Constitution. In this nation, INDIVIDUAL self-determination is the highest value, NOT rule of the majority, and certainly not rule of those with theistic beliefs.

David The US Constitution provides: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Clearly the constitution envisages as the most likely possibility the President swearing an oath (ie to God) as the way of committing himself to fulfil his obligations. It is not, therefore, correct that the US Constitution regards itself as the highest authority in the land.

Michael van der Galien Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Constitution: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Lord our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. all this we ask In the Name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen." The First Prayer offered in Congress September 7th, 1774 by Jacob Duche in Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia They have prayed from the very start. To remove it saying it is in breach with the U.S. Constitution requires a whole new interpretation and a twisted disregard for history and tradition. If you're atheist, you consider the prayer cultural at best, silly at worst, but nothing to ban considering that you don't believe they are praying to anything. Only an atheist extremist would advocate dropping the inaugural prayer considering its long standing tradition, cultural and, to many, religious significance. Atheists can just be quiet, look the other way for a couple of minutes and... done.

Jay_C "They have prayed from the very start. To remove it saying it is in breach with the U.S. Constitution requires a whole new interpretation and a twisted disregard for history and tradition. If you’re atheist, you consider the prayer cultural at best, silly at worst, but nothing to ban considering that you don’t believe they are praying to anything. Only an atheist extremist would advocate dropping the inaugural prayer considering its long standing tradition, cultural and, to many, religious significance. Atheists can just be quiet, look the other way for a couple of minutes and… done. " thanks for the backup MVDG... :)

jc ok...wow for everyone out there supporting this i mean if you dont wish to believe then fine but this thing was way before any of you and it was in some ways founded under god (this nation). if bans like these against any form of religion go through in the future then we have no future and something is going to end up happening just like in the past civilizations which abandoned god they are doomed. This is going to get ugly because at first it was just room to sit and collaborate and now it's hey we are offended by you doing this (and nothing morally or injustly is being done) we will see how this unfolds

marc Well said, Jay_C. The bottom line is that an inaugural prayer no more constitutes the creation of a state religion than does a prayer before a high school football game or the presentation of a Christmas play in elementary school. We've gone too far in interpreting the Constitution if it bans such bedrock cultural mores; such accommodation is ultimately destructive rather than inclusive.