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.
If we had leaders with the guts of Andrew Jackson, that would happen (while I disagree with his position on the Cherokee Nation versus the State of Georgia, I applaude his contempt for the Supremes).
Looking a recent TV presentation on the Presidents, you can come to realize what relative moral pygmies we have had in the White House recently.
I think Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were probably the only Presidents with any substantial backbone in recent times.
I agree with your posting on this subject entirely.
I can understand why you might disagree with my last posting, but I think we have permitted the governmetn and the courts to stand logic on it head in trying to appease minorities of whatever stripe.
Sure, minority rights should be protected. But minority rights should NEVER be protected at the expense of persecuting majority opinion.
America was founded as an essentially Christian nation.
The non-establishment clause refers to a state church to which all citizens were required to belong, as existed in Europe at the time. I don't think the Founding Fathers, all of whom were Christians, ever in their wildest dreams intended for that passage to be used asa cudgel to de-Christianize America.
I think a fair solution to the issue is what I proposed, permit alternating Christian ministers and priests and rabbis to open prayers at the House session. I would even have no problem with Buddhists. But I would draw the line with Muslims for many reasons, which I have outlined many times before, as have so many opther posters on this forum.
Read "Men in Black" by Mark Levin - it exposes the tyranny and capriciousness of the Supreme Court most lucidly.
Based on your excellant post, I'm sure you would enjoy it.
I don't agree with your premise.
You believe a state could legally ban a religion?
Or make private ownership of guns illegal? Since the BoR was ruled not to restrict the states that would follow.
These are theoretical questions for the most part since state constitutions address these issues. But interesting nevertheless.
Concur.
This will only end when the States and the People stand up to these judicial tyrants.
Neither I would say. But I am not the fanatic anti-religious faction which brings all these cases to courts.
Good question. By my previous logic, a State could ban a religion. This would be subject to the State's constitution and its citizens' will. A thorny situation indeed.
...Or make private ownership of guns illegal? Since the BoR was ruled not to restrict the states that would follow.
No. "To keep and bear arms" is a specified right of the People. No unit of government can legally infringe on that right. Only the People can relinquish that right through the amendment process or a constitutional convention.
These are theoretical questions for the most part since state constitutions address these issues. But interesting nevertheless.
Yes. And it's great they are being pondered. For too long the People have allowed politicians and lawyers to perpetuate the myth that they control the Constitution. It belongs to the People. And "We, The People" need to assert our sovereignty is this matter.
Massive public discussion of Constitutional limits placed on government and detailing government abuses of the Constitution are the People's warning shots across the bow of an increasingly out of control government.
By the way according to the news last night it was a quaker in the legislator who was offended and brought the suit.
thank you, Your Holiness, for sharing your personal interpretation of scripture..
Thanks. I suspected it wouldn't be a Bible believing Christian. Here's some info on Quakers.
http://emes.quaker.eu.org/documents/files/meeting-the-spirit.html
http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
States certainly prevented blacks from owning guns until that little squabble of 1861-5 was settled prior to that they were believed to be able to do this.
I understand your argument that the First amendment initially was applied only to the fedgov and that the words "Congress shall..." made it different from the other amendments. But that does not appear to be the common understanding of the Courts. Those which found the 14th changed all that were conservative courts too.
There will be some guy whose grandma was a Quaker who will come in here and try to correct me, but in the earliest days the Camisards in France didn't consider themselves Christian.
The problem with this particular judge and his ruling is that he is so totally in error, and such an offensive person, that the only thing a rational person can do is simply ignore it and move on.
The legislature can certainly exercise its Second Amendment rights sufficient to satisfy any Liberal if this judge tries something even more out of line.
That ruling is not inconsistent with the fifth. You can argue about the definition of "public use" but the property owners are all compensated for the property at market prices. They are not losing anything just unhappy at being forced to sell.
I do agree that the Legislature should just ignore the ruling. Of course, I am a troublemaker interested in what would happen. I cannot see GWB sending in the federal Marshalls to enforce the ruling.
The USSC simply ignored the "just compensation" part and said the state of Connecticut can do what it wants.
Not my personal interpretation. It's a historic view that is widely held by Bible believing Christians. Of course, I expect you don't run into many of them up in northeast Ohio.
Since Catholics are numerous up there, lets start with them. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"To whom may we pray
Although God the Father is mentioned in this prayer as the one to whom we are to pray, it is not out of place to address our prayers to the other Divine persons. The special appeal to one does not exclude the others. More commonly the Father is addressed in the beginning of the prayers of the Church, though they close with the invocation, "Through Our Lord Jesus Christ Thy Son who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end". If the prayer be addressed to God the Son, the conclusion is: "Who livest and reignest with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end"; or, "Who with Thee liveth and reigneth in the unity, etc.". Prayer may be addressed to Christ as Man, because He is a Divine Person, not however to His human nature as such, precisely because prayer must always be addressed to a person, never to something impersonal or in the abstract. An appeal to anything impersonal, as for instance to the Heart, the Wounds, the Cross of Christ, must be taken figuratively as intended for Christ Himself.
For protestants, there is the Westminster Confession (1646) Chapter XXI, Para. 3:
III. Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, is by God required of all men: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son, by the help of His Spirit, according to His will, with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love and perseverance; and, if vocal, in a known tongue.
CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA,:
M. Do you understand that we are to pray to God only in the name of Christ?
S. I so understand. For :it is both so enjoined in distinct terms, and the promise is added, that he will by his intercession obtain what we ask. (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1.)
So it's a subject where you can find agreement between the Roman Catholics, John Calvin, and Oliver Cromwell. Of course, some cults would disagree.
I don't disagree with your statements about the Quakers. They seem to like to describe themselves as "an Alternative Christianity", but they are admittedly not Bible believing.
Yes. I believe the Courts are in error and deliberately mangle the 14th Amendment as a convenience to legislate from the bench. This, along with the false doctrine of judicial review, are the basis of Courts' illegitimate power.
I don't expect people to share my opinions on this. But I do hope it causes them to stop & think as you have done.
There are two different points which come into play.
First, with regard to obedience to civil authorities, yes, the scriptures do teach that EXCEPT in cases where the government decrees that your conduct violate scripture. If, for an extreme example, a federal judge ordered you to pray to satan, you would be obliged to refuse.
Second, there is the question as to whether public prayer is scriptural. After all, Christ taught that prayer should be private, Matthew 6:5-7, although several verses of Acts suggests corporate prayer with other believers is appropriate.
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.