Posted on 11/30/2005 6:40:50 PM PST by NormsRevenge
INDIANAPOLIS - A federal judge on Wednesday barred the Indiana House from opening its sessions with specifically Christian prayers, ruling that such prayers amount to "an official endorsement of the Christian religion."
Judge David Hamilton advised House Speaker Brian Bosma that invocations given in the Legislature should not use the name of Jesus Christ or Christian terms such as savior.
Of 53 opening prayers given in the House during the 2005 session, 41 were given by clergy identified with Christian churches and at least 29 mentioned Jesus Christ, according to court documents.
Hamilton said that practice "amounts in practical terms to an official endorsement of the Christian religion."
"All are free to pray as they wish in their own houses of worship or in other settings," Hamilton wrote. "Those who wish to participate in a practice of official prayer must be willing to stay within constitutional bounds."
Bosma called the ruling an "intolerable decision" that threatened free speech. He said he has directed his lawyers to study ways to overturn the decision.
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union challenged the prayer practices in a lawsuit on behalf of four people, including a Quaker lobbyist, who said they found the tradition of offering the usually Christian prayers offensive.
"The prayers send a very powerful message of exclusion to those who are not of that denomination," said Ken Falk, the ICLU's legal director.
Dozens of religious leaders signed a statement saying House prayers should honor religious diversity.
Yes, he should be impeached. In the meantime he should simply be ignored.
Does the US government have power over a state legislature's internal operations?
What is your take on this?
Since the fourteenth amendment the States can no longer endorse a religion.
That was the Original Constitution which was changed by the fourteenth amendment. Originally the States could establish a religion, suppress the press, ban firearms if they wanted.
But the Bill of Rights was extended to cover state actions by the fourteenth amendment. Equal protection of the Laws.
Best bet going in this one is for the Indiana House to ignore the federal judge.
In this case, however, were they endorsing the Methodists or the Baptists?
The Name that offends them all!!!
John 15:18-21
18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.'[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me."
Philippians 2:5-11
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Sadly, your comments are all correct.
I do not read the 14th Amendment's "equal protection of the laws" as restrictive in States' religious matters.
By the 14th Amendment all States, within their jurisdictions, cannot usurp the privileges and immunities possessed by United States citizens (a virtue of federal laws up to and including the Constitution), and must apply all federal laws and their own State laws equally within their jurisdictions. The 1st Amendment's limitation on religion is neither a U.S. citizen's privilege nor an immunity. It is a restriction placed solely on Congress. And the 10th Amendment unambiguously reserves for the States or the People anything not expressly granted to the Federal government through the Constitution.
So; Congress is prohibited from making any law establishing a religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Religion is not a U.S. citizen's privilege or immunity. And religion is reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. Simply, by the U.S. Constitution, religion is only subject to State, not Federal, government.
That's the way I read the Constitution. I also feel the 14th Amendment has been as massively abused by the Judicial Branch as the Commerce Clause has been abused by the Legislative Branch.
To reiterate, the federal courts have no standing in religious matters. They have unconstitutionally inserted themselves into it and in doing have unconstitutionally legislated from the bench.
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.
There is no such thing as the religion that this Judge has decreed.
Which religion is it that is Christian based but FORBIDS praying in Jesus name?
I can't think of a single one.
The problem with this judge's decision is that HE, the Judge, has CREATED a religion for the benefit of the STATE.
This judge has created a preferred religion and required that it be used instead of the real religions that do exist in America. Isn't that what "established religion" means...or at least is close enough to make a thinking man worry?
Wonder who brought the case? Would appear they certainly "court shopped" for a favorable ruling. I think the Indiana legislature - the peoples of Indiana house - should put this judiciary member in their place.
ping to #33
That is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits and the judge should be flayed.
This "praying in Jesus' name" thing has been an issue with the military chaplaincy for some time.
I decided that it's far easier to simply allow everyone to be him/herself. America is full of different religions and everyone knows it. It is not a secret.
So, if you have a prayer in a public setting, recognize the pastor/priest/rabbi/mullah you invite to pray should be himself. Otherwise, you're creating something that doesn't exist in the real world.
Also, it's a more adult view of the world. Lot's of differences out there. This judge should learn to live with that instead of trying to make all the ducks in life line up in his personal rows.
That's two of us for flaying. Now, are there more?
When I'm flayed, I prefer they start at the top and work down.
:>)
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.