Inauguration Targeted in Religious Censorship Attempts
by Jenni Parker and Bill Fancher
January 10, 2005
(AgapePress) - The 2005 Presidential Inauguration has become a focus in two efforts to block religious expression in the public square. On the heels of an atheist activist's court bid to keep traditional prayer out of the January 20 swearing-in ceremonies comes a ban on crosses along the Inaugural Parade route.At President George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration, Christian invocations were delivered by Rev. Franklin Graham and Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell. Organizers of the 2005 inauguration ceremonies have not announced who will pray this year, but they have affirmed that prayer will be a part of the events, with an invocation and benediction delivered by ministers of the president's choosing.
However, California atheist Michael Newdow is determined to prevent such prayers from being uttered this time and, to that end, has filed a 16-page complaint in the US. District Court for the District of Columbia. Newdow's complaint, filed December 17, seeks a prohibition of public prayer offered by ministers, along with all other "Christian religious acts" at the Presidential Inauguration. In the complaint, he states, "It is an offense of the highest magnitude that the leader of our nation, while swearing to uphold the Constitution, publicly violates that very document upon taking his oath of office."
The 50-year-old doctor, attorney, and licensed "minister of atheism" feels the traditional inaugural prayers in public violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A January 8 article in the Washington Times also suggested that the traditional act of swearing-in, where the new president places a hand on the Bible while repeating the oath of office, might be considered such a "religious act." However, the atheist plaintiff insists otherwise.
Newdow's response to that suggestion was quoted in the Washington Times the following day. He noted that he has never sued "to have anyone keep his or her hand off of a Bible," and his legal complaint specifically seeks "only the prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."
Yet even as the activist now famous for his attack on "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance makes his latest assault on inaugural prayer, Christian activists have been mobilizing a response of their own. On January 7, Faith and Action president Rob Schenck, who has debated Newdow face to face, announced a major Internet petition drive to keep traditional prayer in the Inauguration Day ceremonies.
Faith and Action has teamed up with Grassfire.net to reach millions of Internet users between now and January 20, soliciting their signatures. The petitions gathered will be delivered weekly to the White House, to the Inaugural Committee, and to the federal judge hearing the case.
Crosses Banned for Safety Reasons?
But while the issue of traditional Christian prayer at the Inauguration Day ceremonies remains suspended, a new cloud of controversy has arisen over the inaugural events horizon, this time regarding a traditional Christian symbol. A recent communiqué from the United States Secret Service suggests that crosses are now considered a dangerous weapon and, as such, are banned from the U.S. Presidential Inauguration celebration.
Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition applied for a permit to demonstrate at a certain location along the presidential inauguration parade route. The Christian minister says he was granted the permit but, at the same time, he received a letter of guidance, including a communication from the U.S. Secret Service that astonished him.
The letter contained the Secret Service's directives to the National Park Service in Washington, D.C., about security measures for the Inaugural Parade, including information about items that would be prohibited. As he read the letter, Mahoney says most of the exclusions -- items such as guns, knives, firearms, ammunitions, and explosive devices -- made sense to him. "But down several sentences," he adds, "it says the prohibition includes crosses, and we were absolutely stunned."
The Christian Defense Coalition spokesman says this is the first time in U.S. history that the government has labeled crosses as weapons and banned them from the public square. His organization is asking the Secret Service to reconsider its equation of the Christian symbol with objects of force and violence.
"I mean, this is difficult to believe, harder to explain," Mahoney says, "how the Secret Service in a listing of firearms and weapons would include crosses. We view it as simple religious discrimination."
The Secret Service communication categorizes crosses among banned "structures," a group that also includes props, folding chairs, statues, coffins, puppets and papier mache objects, among other constructed items that could conceal a weapon. However, as Mahoney points out, the cross is the only religious symbol specifically banned along the inaugural parade route.
The Christian Defense Coalition is calling the Secret Service's specific banning of the cross rank discrimination and "religious bigotry and censorship" in its worst form, as well as a violation of the Christian demonstrators' First Amendment rights. A U.S. Newswire/Newscom report quotes the CDC president as saying his group will be on the public sidewalks holding crosses at the Inauguration Day Parade "even if that means risking arrest and jail."
Mahoney says the First Amendment should be celebrated, "not crushed," at this inauguration. Also, the coalition's leader states, if the Secret Service does not reconsider its prohibition of crosses, his group may seek injunctive relief through the courts.
