keep my thoughts to myself about a lot of things.

I'm not the type of person who wants to join in on protests, I'm not big on debating, and I don't begrudge someone the right to have his opinion.

Still, I can't help expressing my satisfaction at the rejection of a lawsuit filed by atheist Michael Newdow last week, asking for a ban on prayer at the inauguration of President Bush.

If the name sounds familiar, it's because Michael Newdow is the one who filed a lawsuit two years ago requesting the words "under God" be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Anyway, Newdow filed an emergency lawsuit to the Supreme Court Jan. 18 after being rejected by two lower courts, asking that prayer be prohibited at the inauguration.

He was rejected by the two lower courts because they failed to see any injury he would receive by there being prayer at the inauguration.

The day before Bush's swearing in, Chief Justice William Rehnquist denied Newdow's demand, as did the judge who considered Newdow's subsequent appeal.

An invocation and benediction were delivered as anticipated at the ceremony. I simply don't understand Newdow's reasoning behind his lawsuit.

According to the Associated Press, Newdow stated that a prayer at the inauguration would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted beliefs.

From what I understand, no one was going to make Newdow say the prayer.

No one was going to brainwash Newdow through the prayer, causing him to change.

No one would probably even try to tell him about God or force him to listen to the Gospel.

At my brother-in-law's graduation from the University of New Orleans in 2000, the opening and closing prayers were Buddhist and included chants.

This wasn't appealing to my relatives who are not Buddhist, but they got over it and moved on. It didn't affect their beliefs, it didn't change who they were as people and it didn't harm them.

So I have a hard time believing a prayer at the inauguration would change anyone listening.

According to the Associated Press, President Bush's lawyers responded to the lawsuit, saying that prayer has been an accepted tradition at inaugurations for more than 200 years.

Newdow's claim was that this cast disapproval upon those who don't have Christian beliefs.

The Bible has been taken out of public schools, as has prayer.

Newdow's lawsuit to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance was actually approved. (The ruling was later thrown out because Newdow didn't have full custody of his child, on whose behalf the suit was filed).

So where the disapproval comes from, I fail to see.

Newdow would lose no rights by even listening to someone pray, and if it was that big of a deal, the option to simply avoid going or watching is a freedom he fortunately has.

Newdow also had the right to file a lawsuit as he did, but he lost, and in my mind, rightfully so.

Sarah Broach is a sophomore journalism major from Luling and serves as a news editor for The Tech Talk. E-mail comments to slb045@latech.edu.