Atheists Sue to Stop Rick Warren From Speaking at Obama’s Inauguration

 A federal judge has decided that he will hear arguments in a case being brought about in order to stop the Reverend Rick Warren from giving the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration.

 There are about forty groups and individuals who are trying to stop Rick Warren from speaking at Obama’s inauguration, led by America’s most famous atheist Michael Newdow.

 What is equally troubling to me is not only that these people are actually trying to stop Warren from speaking but that they actually found a judge that would hear this case.

 Someone is going to have to explain to me how by Rick Warren giving an invocation at Obama’s inauguration this is in violation of the first amendment. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. How is a man saying a prayer at Obama’s inauguration in any way in violation of that phrase? How can that leap be made seriously? How can a prayer being said at an inauguration be congruent to congress passing a law establishing religion?

 Barack Obama would just be exercising his constitutional right to practice his religion. The second half of the freedom of religion clause in the constitution says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Wouldn’t the prohibition of Warren from the inauguration be what is in fact a violation of the constitution?

 As well as his freedom of speech?

 The second half of the freedom of religion clause in the constitution is the half that is conveniently forgotten by atheists and liberal judges who have misinterpreted the constitution for many, many years.

 There is no separation of church and state in the constitution and there is nothing unconstitutional about a person saying a public prayer. There is however something very unconstitutional about prohibiting a man from saying a prayer, whether in public or not.

 The phrase “separation of church and state” was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1801, twelve years after the constitution was ratified.

  A judge looked outside the parameters of the constitution to find a document that justified his perverted interpretation of the constitution and he referred to Jefferson’s letter in order to twist the constitution to say what he personally felt it should say rather than what it does say.

 Now based on precedence all acts of, or displays of faith are being banned from public places to the extent that the constitution is being violated. It is just being violated in the opposite manner of which the courts would have you believe.

 If you are walking down the street and a Christmas tree on the commons offends you, you are too easily offended. Grow up. You shouldn’t be offended by another person’s faith or their constitutional right to that faith. A prayer in public, or a display in public is not a law establishing religion. You can still go home and believe what you want to believe, but it is time to stop trying to force your non belief on the believers.

 That is unconstitutional.