What constitution are you reading?
Ok, now Michael Newdow is being an idiot:
Atheist Michael Newdow has filed a federal lawsuit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's upcoming inauguration....The Inaugural '05 Web site says "A minister chosen by the President will deliver an invocation" before Bush takes the oath of office at the end of January. Newdow says that's unconstitutional and is seeking an expedited hearing of his case.
For those who don't remember, his first case got tossed on a technicality -- he couldn't legally sue on behalf of his daughter because she wasn't in his custody, but his point was solid. This one...no.
Let's look at that establishment clause of the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Applied to the previous case: congress -- despite not having the authority to do so -- intervenes in education, passing legislation on what they do, therefore by extension the mention of "under god" in the pledge in a government school violates it; if you want "god" in, then the federal government must get out, period.
Applied to this new complaint: First of all, it says nothing about the inauguration ceremony, at all. Second, it's been a long-accepted feature of our government that religious expressions for the use of our representatives themselves are accepted -- nobody cares if congressmen pray before they start their day, for example. Also, there is no indication that this is being forced on anyone, I'm sure that if between now & Inauguration day Bush were to hypothetically convert to Islam he could invite an Imam or something, and even be sworn in on a Koran. It's his choice, and he happens to be a christian, so where's the conflict?
He's making us look bad.