Reader Michael Easton writes to us with some thoughts on Michael Newdow's attempt to end the custom of prayer at presidential innaugurals:

I am so thankful this fool's latest lawsuit has been thrown out.  Finally, a judge has said just what I've been wondering about with regard to the entire anti—religious movement:  Newdow presented no evidence that he was in any way "hurt" by hearing a prayer.  Isn't this the simplest, most direct summary of the anti—religious argument —— and the most obvious answer to it?
 
I sent an article about the judge's finding to a friend whose response I'd never considered before:  "If the clergyman is saying a prayer for Bush as he embarks on his second term, is it any of Newdow's business, anyway?"

1 17 04