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.
Ridiculous. A spoken prayer is not a prayer; it's a speech. No speeches in the Indiana House?
It is every Christian's moral and ethical obligation to defend the right to pray in Jesus' name to the death. The priod of martyrdom is apparantly not yet over.
Exactly. They should just ignore it, and let the pieces fall where they may. The only way judicial supremacy will ever truly be challenged and thwarted is if the other branches of govt refuse to obey their unconstitutional rulings. Sure, it may lead to a Constitutional showdown, or even crisis, but if that is what it takes, then so be it. Its getting very frustrating being in a position where we must wait with bated breath to see if the latest GOP SCOTUS nominee is another disaster or not, and hope against hope that they are not.
There's no "tradesies" clause in there.
Here's a thought for you ~ let's say the same judge had decided that if a Jewish rabbi were invited by the members of the General Assembly to provide the benediction that he could no longer say "Amen" or "God".
That's exactly what this particular federal judge has done, but in terms of Christian obligations, devotion and language.
He is so obviously wrong there really can be no argument that he should be treated derisively and then ignored.
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.