E.   A REASONABLE PERSON HEARING THE INAUGURAL PRAYER WOULD NOT VIEW IT AS BEING STATE-SPONSORSHIP OF RELIGION.
Inaugurations are unique events in the history of this country; any analysis of the constitutionality of a particular inaugural practice must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Whether a government activity violates the Establishment Clause is
in large part a legal question to be answered on the basis of judicial interpretation of social facts...Every government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances....
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 693-694 (1984) (0'Connor, J., concurring, suggesting that the appropriate test for alleged Establishment Clause violations is whether the activity constitutes endorsement or disapproval of religion).
Reverend Graham delivered the invocation at the inauguration at President-elect George Bush's invitation.  It is therefore relevant to ask "whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as a state endorsement" of the questioned practice. Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 308, citing  Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 73-76 (1985) (0'Connor, concurring in judgment) .
Would a reasonable observer familiar with the unique place inaugural prayer holds in our country perceive that the government was endorsing Christianity? When inaugural prayer is viewed in its proper historical context the answer must be "no."
What Newdow really seeks here, and in other on-going litigation, is a ruling that there must be a total and complete
22