1    '   Even though this prayer reflects Reverend Graham's
2  Christian beliefs,
3            the mere fact that a prayer evokes a
particular concept of God is not enough to
4            run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
Rather, what is prohibited by the clause is a
5           more aggressive form of advancement, i.e.,
proselytization. See, Marsh, 463 U.S. at 793,
6           n. 14, 794-95, 103 S.Ct. 3330.  By using the term "proselytize" the Court indicated that
7           the real danger in this area is effort by the government to convert citizens to particular
8            sectarian views.
9  Snyder v. Murray City Corporation, 159 F.3d 1227, 1234, fn. 10
10  (10th Cir. 1998).
11      Reverend Graham's prayer was "simply a tolerable
12  acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this
13  country."  Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792.  Indeed, according to the
14  information Newdow included with his Opposing Memorandum of Law
15  in Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed
16  on or about June l, 2001, at p. 66, at least 88% of Americans
17  identify themselves as Christians.  Reverend Graham's Christian
18  references merely reflect beliefs held by more than 200 million
19  people.
20      Accordingly, Chief Justice Burger's direction not to
21  evaluate the content of a prayer compels this court to decline
22  Newdow's invitation to do so here.  As this court has already
23  ruled in the Order filed September 28, 2001, inaugural prayer
24  does not violate the Establishment Clause.  Summary judgment
25  should therefore be granted on the Newdow's claim that Rev.
26  Graham's Christian prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
27  ///
28  ///
21