Generally, I lean towards the latter, usually taking refuge in advocating that we allow equal access to all religions whose American congregation reaches a certain total (say 100,000 people). Of course, determining how many people actually follow a particular religion can be tricky, especially in cases where religious identity and ethnic identity overlap, such as with Jewish people. And limiting it to groups who meet membership requirements is patently unfair to all the other groups, but it is at least a workable solution to the problem of there being simply too many religions to give all of them equal time.

However in the case of prayers at public, governmental gatherings, I believe religion really has no place. If a Congressman or woman wants to pray, then let them do so at home before they leave for work, or in their office before the head to the chambers. Opening each session with a prayer promotes the notion that it is not acceptable to have no particular religion, or to be an atheist. It creates an atmosphere where one of the prerequisites of holding office is religious belief.

That is totally contrary to the understanding of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience that I learned are hallmarks of American democracy.

This ban applies not only to Congress, but to any governmental event -- whether it be the dedication of a new school, graduation ceremonies, local and state government functions, or national events.

Having said all this, I believe it is important to recognize that the outcry over prayers led by a Hindu reveal the thinly veiled religious bigotry that has gripped many in our nation since the rise of the Moral Majority with it's agenda of ensuring that America become a Christian nation.

Given that we do have prayers at governmental events, then the desire of certain Christians to exclude people from other religions must be countered, at least until the day when we can come to an agreement that prayer really is something the government needs to stay out of.