Posted on 12/09/2005 12:26:51 PM PST by Caleb1411
A federal court has ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives may not open with any kind of prayer that mentions "Christ's name or title." This ruling is far more significant than banning the Ten Commandments in courthouses or taking "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. What the Indiana decision does is to outlaw Christian prayer in the civic arena. And, if it stands, it will mean that no Christian clergyman or layperson can in good conscience pray at public events.
The word invocation does not just mean a prayer that opens a meeting. It means "calling upon" a deity. Virtually every prayer begins by calling upon the name of the person to whom the prayer is addressed.
Islamic prayersas were also offered in the Indiana House and noted with approval in Judge David Hamilton's rulingbegin "In the name of Allah, the merciful." Is it legal to invoke Allah's name, and not that of Jesus Christ?
He Himself tells His followers that they are to make their requests to God in His name (John 14:13). So Christian prayers have historically concluded with some variation of "in Jesus' name we pray."
But surely just ending a prayer with that formula is not always necessary, some might say. Many prayers in the Bible, including the Lord's Prayer, do not end that way. Surely Christian clergymen given the honor of praying at a civic event can live with the ruling. Leaving Jesus out of their prayers is a way to avoid offense. After all, we can still address our prayers to Him, if not in words at least in our hearts.
But the Lord's Prayer too begins with an invocation that makes clear whom we are addressing: "Our Father, which art in heaven." Furthermore, it lifts up His name: "Hallowed be Thy name."
It is true that prayers do not have to end in a particular formula, but they still must be offered through Christ. Jesus tells us to pray "in faith" (Matthew 21:22). Only when we are in Christ may we dare come into the Father's presence. But through Christ, our intercessor and high priest, we have free access to the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). Also when we pray, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us when we do not know what to say (Romans 8:26).
The point is, Christian prayer is trinitarian but it is not generic. It may be possible to address the Trinity without mentioning any of the divine persons. But surely no Christian could accept the terms of the Indiana decision, that you can pray only if you do not invoke your God.
Let us assume that the court's concern for a strict separation of church and state is valid. Let us further assume the tenets of multiculturalism and the value of religious diversity. If I ask someone to pray for me, I can only expect that person to pray to the deity he believes in, using the forms of his religion. A Muslim will give an Islamic prayer. A Hindu will give a Hindu prayer. And a Christian will give a Christian prayer. Each person will pray according to his particular beliefs and the practices of his religion. The same must hold true when a legislature asks someone to pray.
In the Indiana ruling, a federal court dictates the content of a prayer, forbids the invocation of a particular deity, and mandates that prayers may only be directed to a universal divinity who reigns in an interfaith pantheon. That is not religious tolerance; it is religious intolerance. It does not promote religious diversity; it eliminates religious diversity. And when a federal court tells people who they can and cannot pray to and how they are allowed to pray, what we have is state-sponsored religion.
Islamic prayersas were also offered in the Indiana House and noted with approval in Judge David Hamilton's rulingbegin "In the name of Allah, the merciful." Is it legal to invoke Allah's name, and not that of Jesus Christ?
Sad.
And un-Constitutional.
The Indiana House of Representatives should tell the Federal Court to go to Hell and do what they want.
Is the Indiana House controlled by a Republican majority? It would take a backbone to defy the judge's ruling and I'm not sure Republicans are up to it these days.
The proper response to this is to ignore the judge and do it anyway. What's the federal judge going to do about it?
Let an elected official lead the prayer and let him tell the judge that he is exercising his first ammendment rights.
Have him tell the judge that he is answerable for what he says to the people who elected him, and if they are unhappy with him expressing his personal faith while in office they can choose to not reelect him.
any kind of prayer that mentions "Christ's name or title."
Very specific language.
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Seems to me that the courts of Indiana can't do a damn thing if one of the legislators themselves offered a prayer on the floor of the legislature. Even if they find it a violation of their constitution, the Indiana Executive branch is powerless to prevent it.
"In the name of Allah, the merciful."
Sorry, but isn't that their GOD?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Courts cannot make law by fiat which is wholly unconstitutional.
Who will arrest someone in this country for speaking the name of Christ?
That pig will be roasting on a pit before nightfall!
Yes, the Indiana House is controlled by Republicans. I don't know if the Republicans will defy the ruling, but it sounds like a Democrat might. Rep. Goodin, a Crothersville Democrat, has said that he wanted to deliver the first prayer when the House opens next month. He was quoted as saying
"A judge is not going to tell me what I can or cannot say to express my belief in Christ."
- Matthew 11:6, Luke 7:23But Peter said to Him, "Even though all may fall away, yet I will not."
- Mark 14:29
DITTO.
DITTO.
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.