To Pray or Not to Pray...

As the Indiana House of Representatives opens its 2006 session tomorrow, the first question facing lawmakers is to pray or not to pray in the name of Jesus. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton reaffirmed his November ruling that praying in the name of Jesus violated the high court's concoction of the "separation of church and state." The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed by the Indiana branch of the ACLU. Several House members, Republican and Democrat, have said that if they are given the chance to open tomorrow's session they will defy the judge's order and open the session in Christian prayer. The Indiana House Speaker, Rep. Brian C. Bosma (R), who is challenging the federal court ruling, has said the session will be opened in prayer but that he will seek to abide by the judge's ruling pending the outcome of the challenge. It is important to note that the members of the clergy who open these sessions of the various legislatures are not employees of the state and are not paid by the state.

Judge Hamilton is instructing the House Speaker to censor the prayers of the clergy to ensure they do not pray in Jesus's name. Thanks to Judge Hamilton the Indiana House of Representatives now joins Saudi Arabia as one more place where Jesus's name cannot be honored in an official ceremony. The numbers of anti-Christian rulings like this one from Judge Hamilton are multiplying. It is decisions like this that give rise to the need for Justice Sunday III which will be broadcast this coming Sunday night from Philadelphia, PA. Speaker Bosma is scheduled to join us in this special program. Thank you, Speaker Bosma, and thanks, too, to the members of the Indiana State House of Representatives who are resisting this latest example of judicial activism.

Additional Resources Judge Upholds Prayer Limits in Ind. State House Publicly Honoring God: Justice Antonin Scalia on the Ten Commandments

Slated for this January 8 at 7 pm, Justice Sunday III will raise the pressing issues of religious liberty, traditional marriage, and the sanctity of human life. All of these will be at issue during the Alito confirmation hearings that are scheduled to begin next Monday. The simulcast will be hosted by Greater Exodus Baptist Church, where Pastor Herbert Lusk, Jr. has provided tremendous leadership in transforming the inner city through faith-based outreach. Next week, when Judge Alito's critics bore in on him with their questions on "separation of church and state," we want people to understand what they really mean is to push people of faith out of the public arena. When they grill Alito on "privacy rights," they are really referring to abortion-on-demand and the newly-minted "right" to commit sodomy. These and other critical issues are before our courts every day.

"Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land" is our theme for this third judicial simulcast. That quote from Leviticus is on the crown of our Liberty Bell. Whether it will remain there is a subject we should all care passionately about. Urge your friends and family to join us for this simulcast.

None. of the 11 tailor-made cell colonies that South Korean researcher Hwang Woo Suk claimed to have created actually exist. The Washington Post calls this widening scandal "one of the biggest scientific frauds in memory." That story may never be fully told. The journal Science, which had trumpeted Hwang's research, now says it will retract his "landmark" May 2005 paper on embryonic stem cells. Note the word--landmark. This is liberals' word-of-choice for some really big, really good thing, as in "the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling."

We make no secret that we have always opposed this unethical approach to stem cell research, because it always involves the taking of innocent human life. But the further reason that this news is tragic is that it shows the resources and attention that have been squandered when they might have been fully invested in adult stem cell research. That measure brought together liberals and conservatives, to achieve a consensus approach to efficacious research in this vital new field.

Additional Resources Stem Cell Advance Is Fully Refuted Human Cloning and the Abuse of Science

Now, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union went after Speaker Bosma soley, not the Indiana House of Representatives as a body, not the Republican Senate Pro Tem, just Brian Bosma, which means that this is more than just the ICLU falling in line like puppies with the ACLU. They've made it personal. At least I can smile when I think that the ICLU picked on a lawyer.

I've been in the chambers during the opening prayer, and the leaders in the Indiana House and Senate, no matter what party, have always sought to be inclusive, and have invited leaders of all faiths to provide the innvocation. So, really this seemed like a huge overreaction by the ICLU to all of us Hoosiers (or at least everyone I know on both sides of the aisle).

What I can't understand, and maybe some FR lawyers can explain it to me, is how Judge Hamilton can take away the first amendment rights of every Hoosier. Isn't restricting the use of sectarian prayer (the order doesn't just bar mentioning Jesus, but takes a stab at all sectarian prayer) "prohibiting the free exercize" of religion? Don't the legislators and ordinary citizens who visit "the people's house" have the right to practice their faith in a building they pay for? Isn't banning specific words by specific people "abridging the freedom of speech?" And doesn't banning these citizen legislators from gathering together to pray freely as they see fit in the House and Senate chambers abriding their "right to peaceably assemble?" The Statehouse is technically part theirs as well, since they are taxpaying citizens of Indiana.

And I'm really curious as to how Judge Hamilton thinks it's fair or even legal to demand that the Speaker of the House infringe on the rights of regular Hoosiers who will be leading prayer by telling them they cannot use certain words to verbalize a true prayer as dictated by their religion.

I mean, you can give a non-denominational prayer, but doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of praying if you believe in any religion? If you're Christian, doesn't leaving Jesus out of the prayer really make the prayer pretty hollow? If those who were invited to lead a prayer had truly wanted to give a generic non-sectarian prayer, wouldn't they have not become Christian, Jewish, or Muslim in the first place?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.