The "big deal" is that this is essentially a Christian nation - most people here are Christians. They could have a minister come in and give a prayer at the opening session, and alternate with a rabbi, and a priest. I don't think anyone would care.
But acknowledging that this is essentially a Christian nation and using the name of Christ in no way signifies an "establishment of religion" in the sense the Founding Fathers understood it.
If you don't like it - don't listen. But don't stop us from doing it.
ACTUALLY, I liked your previous post better. This has nothing to do with the religious flavor of the federal government. This is a states rights issue.
States rights has been a dirty word since the civil war when Lincoln arrogated the constitution. At the time arrogating the constitution was justified because the higher priority was preserving the union. The constitution guarantees the limitations of the the Federal Governments Powers, granting those powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the states and then to the individual.
But TODAY the constitution is interpreted as an overarching megalomaniacle grabbag of 'RIGHTS' from which any politician can grab a tool of demagoguery to implement a tyranny. And it is used in this case to ENFORCE the federal governments ESTABLISHED religion of secular humanism in spite of and in conflict with the desires of the majority of the people in that state.
So in a very real way the federal government has NO jurisdiction in this case. Their best move right now would be to challenge the authority of the federal government and IGNORE the ruling from the federal court. LET THEM TRY TO ENFORCE IT.