Another Federal Court Boner
This article tells about it. Federal court judge David Hamilton ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives prayers that have opened sessions since the state was formed are in violation of the law.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union
on behalf of four citizens. The suit contended the House prayers -- a 188-year
tradition -- overwhelmingly promoted Christian values.
Yes, they probably have "overwhelmingly" promoted Christian values, but then again the state is overwhelmingly Christian. The prayers haven't, however, "solely" promoted Christian values.
Of 53 prayers offered in the House during the 2005 session, 41 were
delivered by people identified with Christian churches, Hamilton's written
opinion says. Of the 45 prayers for which transcripts were available, 29 were
offered in the name of Jesus, the Savior and/or the Son.
As Ol' BC sees it, this is probably somewhat representative of the state itself. The state is probably more than 77% Christian (41 of 53 referenced above). If I went to, oh let's say Calcutta, India and the legislative body opened with a Hindu prayer, I would not find that offensive in any way shape or form. There are probably a large number of Hindu folks in India.
By the same token, when one immigrates to the United States he or she has to know that this is a predominantly Christian nation.
I fail to see how a prayer asking for strength, wisdom or peace isn't inclusive even if it's asked in the name of Buddha or Jesus. But then again the Federal government has pretty much lost touch with the average American who pays the taxes .
Just a thought.
posted by Ol' BC @ 6:17 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I don't think there would have been a problem if the prayers from the Speaker's podium had just been asking for strength, wisdom or peace, even had they prayed in the name of Jesus.
But, several ministers went further than that. Some examples from the decision:
The January 19th prayer concluded: “We ask You to bless these leaders in the name of Jesus, Your Son, and our Lord who reigns forever and ever. Amen." . . . "We look forward to the day when all nations and all people of the earth will have the opportunity to hear and respond to messages of love of the Almighty God who has revealed Himself in the saving power of Jesus Christ." . . .
After the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Speaker Bosma reintroduced Reverend Brown, saying: “I understand he has a wonderful voice and he is going to bless us with a song.” Reverend Brown proceeded to sing “Just a Little Talk with Jesus.” A number of the legislators, staff, and visitors present in the chamber stood, clapped, and sang along at the invitation of Reverend Brown. This event prompted at least some members of the House to walk out because they believed the sectarian religious display during the legislative session was inappropriate." . . . In addition to the many explicitly Christian prayers, the prayer for February 21st was generally inclusive but contained a feature especially offensive to Jews.
The prayer used the Hebrew name for God, known as the Tetragrammaton, which Jews do not mention aloud.
My suspicion is that the revival-style sing along with Jesus is where things really crossed the line.
I thought this quote from the decision was pretty spot-on:
"We cannot adopt a view of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish, or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect. To ban all manifestations of this faith would needlessly transform and devitalize the very nature of our culture. When we gather as Americans, we do not abandon all expressions of religious faith. Instead, our expressions evoke common and inclusive themes and forswear, as Chesterfield has done, the forbidding character of sectarian invocations."
The January 19th prayer concluded: “We ask You to bless these leaders in the name of Jesus, Your Son, and our Lord who reigns forever and ever. Amen." . . . "We look forward to the day when all nations and all people of the earth will have the opportunity to hear and respond to messages of love of the Almighty God who has revealed Himself in the saving power of Jesus Christ." . . .
Wow, Doug. Really harmful stuff. WTF is wrong with you?
RWR
Government speakers don't get to endorse religion as part of the official business of the House of Representatives. That way Jews and Wiccans and atheists get to be part of our democracy too.
Why, exactly, is it so important that Jesus get involved in Indiana's legislative process?
Simple, Doug...
Because as United States Citizens, the representatives in the Indiana legislatures have the same religious freedoms as you and I.
You have to have a pretty fucked up point of view not to see that.
RWR
Wait a second. Are you under the impression that this order somehow bars legislators from speaking and praying as they choose when they aren't acting as the government?
The law makes a distinction between government speech and private speech. There are Constitutional limits on permissible government speech but not as private speech. So, when the legislators are speaking as the government, the First Amendment Establishment Clause imposes limits on the government.
When they are speaking as citizens, they can engage in the same speech as the rest of us. Praise Jesus. Have a revival. Scorn Muhammad. Whatever.
Just, from your responses, it's not clear to me that you've grasped the distinction between government speech and private speech and the Constitutional relevance thereof.
Ah, Doug, your response confirms the idiocy of this ruling. "..the distinction between government speech and private speech" is exactly the point. These people who seem to be the subjects of this ruling qualify as "private speech" in as much as they are volunteers who deliver the prayer PRIOR to the house being called to order for government business to commence. These folks are not elected or paid government employees and in no way represent the state.
Doug,
This is the United States of America.
There is no such thing as "government speech" here.
Every American, at every moment in his life, has the full right to pray, whether in public or private, alone or in a group. Those who choose not to participate are free to do so, as long as they do not interfere with those who do choose to participate.
Get your ACLU-lovin ass back to your corner where it belongs.
RWR
when the legislators are speaking as the government, the First Amendment Establishment Clause imposes limits on the government.
No it doesn't. If it did, the legislators who wrote it wouldn't have been sitting around praying prior to their sessions, you moron.
RWR
BTW,
All the establishment clause says is that there is to be no one National religion that everyone is expected to subscribe to without facing punishment. Further, it does not bar states from having "official" religions in their individual states.
What have you been smoking, Doug?
RWR
Post a Comment
<< Home