it's not about the removal of something on the off chance of someone becoming offended. it's about the role of government as a non-denominational, atheistic, agnostic entity which is designed to accommodate all faiths and non-faiths equally. opening civic meetings with prayers skirts very close to the establishment clause without crossing it. the separation of church and state was included in the Constitution for a reason, and i believe this is one of those reasons. the entire point of the separation is that you are free to exercise your relgious rights in private, but that the government can not make preference of one religion/sect over another. including a religious ceremony -- especially a specifically christian ceremony -- before conducting the government's business is too close to violating the separation that is required.

if they had scheduled a rotation among the various faiths represented by the community, it would probably have never gotten to the supreme court, because it would have clearly been a policy to be inclusive and non-denominational and thus not establishing a favored religion for the invocation. but i am still struck by the fact that they seem to have not even considered having other faiths represented until those faiths began asking to be included. to me, that is why this ruling got it wrong. or at least, the reasoning behind the ruling is in the wrong direction from what i think the case is actually about -- namely that government agencies should not be favoring one religion above all others.