c. 2005 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell won’t reveal exactly what words he’ll use in his second inaugural benediction after President Bush’s swearing-in on Jan. 20.

“You’ll have to just tune in,” said the senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston.

Four years ago, his prayer ending with the name of Jesus and the words “Let all who agree say, `Amen’ ” sparked _ as he puts it _ “a little hoopla.” Some critics said the reference to Christ was exclusionary to non-Christians.

As Bush’s second inauguration approaches, legal sparring over planned prayers and a ban on crosses on the inaugural parade route have already erupted, illustrating how religion has become an increasingly contentious issue at the once-every-four-years event.

Times have changed from the spring day in 1789 when the first president prayed during his inaugural speech and was then accompanied by members of Congress to a worship service a few blocks away.

This year’s inauguration prayers are to be uttered by Caldwell and the Rev. Luis Leon, pastor of St. John’s Church, a Washington-based Episcopal congregation located across Lafayette Park from the White House.

But if California atheist Michael Newdow has his way, there will be no such prayers. He filed a suit last month to halt the tradition.

Newdow said in an interview that his suit is part of his effort to stand up for atheists in a society that he believes falsely links being a “true American” with belief in God. He thinks the 2001 inaugural prayers by Caldwell and evangelist Franklin Graham affirmed that notion.

“Government keeps reinforcing that idea,” he said. “I strongly disagee with that. Atheists are the most despised minority.”

The Bush administration begs to differ, saying that prayers at the inauguration are a tradition that Newdow shouldn’t be able to stop.

“Inaugural prayer serves the permissible secular purpose of solemnizing a ceremony in a manner that traces back to the earliest days of our nation, and involves no greater appearance of endorsement of religion than any of the other ceremonial references to God that are ubiquitous in our nation’s history and culture,” reads the court document filed on behalf of the president.

Just down the street from the upcoming inauguration, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney and supporters of his Christian Defense Coalition intend to gather along the parade route for a prayer vigil and demonstration in favor of anti-abortion Supreme Court justices.

But, if Secret Service regulations are followed, they cannot have crosses or other structures unless they are made of materials considered safe by the authorities. Mahoney says Christians are being singled out in a discriminatory way and his lawyer has written to the federal agency seeking a change in the language.

Mahoney’s organization has joined efforts to oppose Newdow’s case even as the evangelical Christian leader exchanges letters with the Secret Service about the religious rights of Christians.

“I think what you’re seeing is that public expression of religion is becoming much more of a hot-button issue and you see both sides of the spectrum here,” Mahoney said.

“Actually, the Newdow case and our case, in a way, encapsulate the drama that we’re seeing across the nation.”

Kenneth Wald, author of “Religion and Politics in the United States,” said he thinks the inaugural debates have escalated as evangelical Protestants have increased their public role.

“Historically the goal has been … to make (the inauguration) nonsectarian,” said Wald, a political science professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “Bush really got away from that in 2001 and my guess is he’ll do the same thing in 2005.”

Caldwell attributes the legal rumblings to diversity rather than drama.

“I just think we live in a diverse and democratic community,” he said of the differing points of view that are highlighted this inaugural season. “I think that’s a good thing.”

Caldwell said the White House did not give him guidance on his wording last time around and he doesn’t expect any executive edicts this time either.

“It was not my intent to exclude or insult,” he said, responding to Newdow and other critics. “It is obviously his right to express his opinion and I look forward to offering the benediction.”

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Back in 1789, when President George Washington was sworn in for the first time, the chief executive himself included prayers within his inaugural text.

“It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe,” he said on the balcony of Federal Hall in New York.

Marvin Kranz, a historical specialist at the Library of Congress, said Washington’s words were the first in a line of religiously related language from inaugural speeches.

“Almost all the presidents _ as far as I know virtually all of them _ have had some reference to a power beyond ourselves,” said Kranz, who has curated exhibits at the library on inaugurations. “I think it was pretty much accepted that this was a normal thing. In more recent times, we’ve been squabbling over the overt role of religion in public life.”

Vincent Phillip Munoz, an assistant professor of political science at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, said Washington also started the traditions of placing a hand on the Bible and ending the oath of office with the words “so help me God” as an effort to solemnize the occasion.

Although now some would think it was “peculiarly improper” to acknowledge God during the swearing-in ceremony, Munoz said such religious expression has become a historical tradition.

“I suspect that President Bush will swear his oath on the Bible and end it with `so help me God,”’ he said. “George Washington definitely would not have thought that was unconstitutional.”

MO/JL END BANKS