1  declaration that tHe use of "any clergyman" and an injunction
2  against future "similar religious acts")6 clearly show he wants
3  all references to God eliminated, not just Christian references.
4  His only real interest is in having this Court declare that al.1
5  prayer at a presidential inauguration violates the Establishment
6  Clause.  Indeed, his effort to ban all prayer demonstrates his
7  clear conflict of interest with theistic non-Christians.  As The
8  Ninth Circuit pointedly observed in the Hong Kong:
9            Hong Kong's willingness to enjoin the WIC
program was probative of a conflict, rather
10            than a congruence, of interests, thereby undermining Hong Kong's claim to be a
11            suitable champion of its customers'
rights...[T]he manner in which it has
12            litigated the suit thus far casts
considerable doubt on Hong Kong's competence
13            or incentive 'to frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal.'
14
15  Hong Kong, at 1082 (internal citations omitted.)
16       Could Newdow be a "suitable champion" and present, with
17  "adversarial zeal," arguments on behalf of those who believe in
18  God, e.g., Jews, and who may have no objection to references to
19  God in an inaugural prayer, but who might be offended by a
20  prayer's overt reference to Jesus Christ?  Clearly he cannot.
21        In addition, the fact that apparently no litigation has
22  ever been commenced to challenge the content of a Christian
23  inaugural prayer suggests that theistic non-Christians do not
24  perceive Christian inaugural prayer that happens no more than
25  once every four years as state sponsorship or establishment of
26  religion.  Even assuming some non-Christians object to the
I6  See plaintiff's Prayer for Relief at p. 7 of the 28  Complaint filed February 1, 2001.
16