My Mother is Very Religious, and I Am Not

[onenote]

19. if the issue was simply whether the inaugural events represented everyone

then the presence of exclusion of a particular type of music or the appearance on stage of persons of one ethnic background but not another would also be the subject a bunch of threads here. But they're not. Why? Because religion rings a different bell. And its because religion stands out that the Constitution ensures that the government will neither force someone to become an adherent of a particular faith (or of any faith) nor will it prevent people from exercising their religion.

Where the proper line is under the Constitution is something that has been debated for a long time and will continue to be debated for a long time. My only wish is that the debate take place in a respectful fashion, with neither the believers denigrating the non-believers, nor the non-believers denigrating the believers. Too often over the past two days I have seen exactly the opposite from both sides of the debate.

My personal take is that the presentation of religious speech at the inauguration (including the singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic and the references to God in various oaths, speeches, benedictions etc) did not cross the Constitutional line as it currently stands in they eyes of the law. Someday the line may be moved -- that is the nature of a living Constitution that is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation.