He has the right to pray any way he wants in his church, his home, or in any place he wants, but the does not have the right to force his religion in or on a government meeting. Now we just have to get them kicked out of Congress.

I personally am having a hard time seeing how a prayer can be anything but sectarian.

Members of the Christian Taliban insist on having prayer to open sessions of legislative bodies from the city to the federal level. The thing is, they also believe that such prayer must be Christian, although they can tolerate an occasional Jewish prayer, as long as the Jewish people don't get to uppity and expect to have the right every month or so. In July 2007 a Hundu chaplin, Rajan Zed, was invited to open the Senate secession with a prayer. If you listen to the enclosed link, you will understand that Christians are not interested in any ecumenical actions by our government. Bigots must be bigots, I guess.
The actions of the Religious Reich activists do not speak for the mainstreem Christian majority, but they certainly have political clout due to the money they receive from their fearful herd of sheep that the leaders have frightened into marching in lockstep to avoid a make believe future of fire and brimstone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30H … 1&index=30

Kemay,
When I try to figure out what the intent of the Framers was, I tend to look at what the "Father of the Constitution," said:

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt" -- James Madison - Detached Memoranda