Interestingly, this is often less of a problem in the military than it is in civilian life. I know of no group of clergy that take more seriously the need to balance membership in a particular religious group with the obligation to meet the spiritual needs of any person who comes before them, and to meet those needs on the terms of that person. Is the system perfect? Of course not. But I will never forget speaking with an Evangelical minister about his challenge in providing a meaningful burial to a Wiccan soldier. The fact that he had a million problems with Wicca was simply trumped by his duty to honor the spiritual needs of the man before him. If that isn't a model for religious openness without the surrender of religious integrity, I don't know what is. Let's try and address the prayer question in that spirit -- no pun intended.

This should not be about constitutional debate or political wrangling. Which is why the ACLU's involvement, however well meaning, is not helpful. Nor is the involvement, soon to come I am sure, of any of the conservative advocacy groups with the word "freedom" in their name. This needs to be about meeting the spiritual needs of those sharing a meal, including those who have no felt spiritual needs at all.

So how about inviting all those who call the U.S. Naval Academy home, and who oppose such prayers, to articulate what they could live with in order to support those who want them, and inviting all those who want them figuring out how to pray in light of those requests. If neither side can participate in that conversation, then we will know that what they seek is not the accommodation of their needs, but the exclusion of someone else's.

Perhaps a moment of silence to reflect on these questions is where to begin. Imagine no longer fighting about which side is right, but inviting all those affected to consider the needs of those around them before eating the meal they need to meet their own.