defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-910-9153

COLLECTION: Judge rules Indiana House must stop sectarian prayers

House prayers can't invoke Jesus

Federal judge declares that invocations advancing a specific religion are unconstitutional

By Richard D. Walton, Indianapolis Star, December 1, 2005

A federal court judge Wednesday barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any religion at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Judge David Hamilton found that the House practice breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government establishment of religion. While not banning prayers in the House, Hamilton ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in a bid to convert listeners.

Hamilton, who based his decision on a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision setting boundaries on legislative prayer, said all are free to pray as they wish in their places of worship.

"The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium . . . to express their own religious faiths,'' Hamilton said.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four citizens. The suit contended the House prayers -- a 188-year tradition -- overwhelmingly promoted Christian values.

Rep. Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, who as speaker became a defendant in the case, called the decision "intolerable," "terrible," and "shocking." It violates the free speech of religious leaders, he said. According to the ruling, "the name of Christ will not be said in prayer during the coming session."

But Bosma said he hasn't decided whether he'll follow the order.

"This is an intolerable decision I hope cannot stand."

Of 53 prayers offered in the House during the 2005 session, 41 were delivered by people identified with Christian churches, Hamilton's written opinion says. Of the 45 prayers for which transcripts were available, 29 were offered in the name of Jesus, the Savior and/or the Son.

One prayer urged that "whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." Another called for a worldwide conversion to Christianity: "We look forward to the day when all nations and all people of the earth will have the opportunity to hear and respond to messages of love of the Almighty God who has revealed Himself in the saving power of Jesus Christ."

In an incident that prompted some offended representatives to walk out of the chamber, one minister led the House in the singing of Just a Little Talk with Jesus. This spurred the legal challenge.

Court records filed on behalf of Bosma noted that prayers have been said before American legislative bodies since colonial days. His side argued that the House prayers were inclusive in that people of all faiths can volunteer for the duty, and that there is no discrimination on who is chosen. Jewish and Muslim clerics also delivered the prayer during the last legislative session.

Moreover, those selected receive a form letter asking that the cleric "strive for" an ecumenical prayer.

But Judge Hamilton found the instruction inadequate. He ordered the speaker to give more explicit instructions.

"If the Speaker chooses to continue to permit nonsectarian prayers as part of the official proceedings, he shall advise all persons offering such prayers . . . that the prayers must be non-sectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief." Added Hamilton: "The prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal."

Kenneth Falk, legal director of the civil liberties union, said the ruling provides for no penalty against those who violate the mandated guidelines while giving the prayer. He said the ruling merely acknowledges that the U.S. is not an exclusively Christian nation and that government-sanctioned, sectarian prayer will not be permitted.

Daniel Conkle, a professor of law at Indiana University in Bloomington, said the ruling could have ramifications for other government bodies that have prayer to open meetings, such as city councils.

Mixed response

Dozens of religious leaders, including Christians, have signed a statement saying that House prayers should honor religious diversity. The document has been sent to Bosma and to Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton, R-Columbus.

Rabbi Jon Adland, Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, praised the court decision. He was among those who submitted affidavits on behalf of the ICLU.

Adland said he has been a strong advocate for the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean, he added, that there can be no prayers in public buildings. But, he said, "if you're going to have prayer it has to be inclusive of all people."

Imam Umar Al-Khattab, of the Masjid Al Fajr on Cold Spring Road, said he doesn't think it's unreasonable to ask religious leaders to offer House prayers applicable to all faiths. "When you say Jesus or Buddha that's exclusive," he said.

However, the Rev. Clarence Brown of Bedford, who led the House in singing Just A Little Talk with Jesus, thinks the decision "infringes on the Christian."

The court ruling also drew criticism from former House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, a Democrat who is now the minority leader. Bauer, D-South Bend, said this issue transcends partisanship and that he would back Bosma if he chooses to appeal.

"I think it's untenable," Bauer said. "It's a question of excluding all religions, and that's where the error lies. I don't think you forsake religion."

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of government bodies to open sessions with a prayer, noting the "unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years." But in the 1983 high court decision, the justices said the prayers can't promote one religion over another or disparage any other religion. The justices also ruled the prayers cannot be used in an attempt to convert.

Hamilton found that "the consistently sectarian prayers" of the Indiana House go far beyond what that ruling permits.

"The prayer opportunities have frequently and consistently been used to advance the Christian religion," he said.

Star reporters Michele McNeil, Mary Beth Schneider and the Associated Press contributed to this story.

Daniels: Prayer ruling 'regrettable'

Governor would have preferred that dispute over references to Jesus in House be solved privately

By Mary Beth Schneider, Indianapolis Star, December 3, 2005

While saying that prayers in government venues must be inclusive, Gov. Mitch Daniels on Friday called a federal court decision mandating that inclusion "regrettable."

"Not everything that ought to be should be dictated by a court," Daniels said. Instead, he said, the dispute over overtly Christian prayers in the Indiana House would have been better resolved "by private and voluntary agreement."

U.S. District Judge David Hamilton ruled this week that prayers in the Indiana House must not mention Jesus Christ or advance any particular religion.

"I just think it's regrettable," Daniels said. "It's in a long line now of, I think, confusing and sometimes clumsy attempts by the courts to insert themselves into this issue." Daniels, who said he has only read a summary of the 60-page decision, said he believes prayer is "very often appropriate in a country founded on religious principles."

But, he added, when his office hosts an event, people who are giving a prayer or invocation are asked to remember the need "to be inclusive."

House Speaker Brian Bosma, an Indianapolis Republican who is a defendant in the lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, has left open the possibility of defying the order. One lawmaker, Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, said he wants to deliver the first prayer when the House returns Jan. 4.

"A judge is not going to tell me what I can or cannot say to express my belief in Christ," Goodin said.

Ministers divided over federal court's prayer ruling

Even those who support decision would have preferred reaching a compromise out of court

By Robert King, Indianapolis Star, December 2, 2005

Some see it as a sign of a society broken loose from its Christian moorings.

Others see it as recognition of Indiana's religious diversity but lament that politicians preferred a public fight to a quiet compromise.

Regardless of their views, religious leaders from around Indianapolis found little to celebrate in this week's federal court ruling that said prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives must not mention Jesus Christ or endorse particular religions.

The Rev. Jerry McCamey, pastor at Calvary Temple on the Eastside of Indianapolis, said the ruling -- and others about Ten Commandments displays and the Pledge of Allegiance -- show that American courts are protecting minority faiths at the expense of the Christian majority. "Christianity is constantly under attack," McCamey said. "Somehow they don't view it as politically incorrect to stand up against Jesus Christ."

The Rev. Howard Brammer, senior pastor at Traders Point Christian Church on the Northwestside, said the ban on sectarian prayers in the House was "another indication of the secularization of the nation."

"I'm disappointed, but I'm not surprised," Brammer said. "The idea of minimizing Jesus and Christianity is pretty prevalent throughout the country."

Other religious leaders saw wisdom in Judge David Hamilton's ruling.

The Rev. Kevin Armstrong, pastor at North United Methodist Church on the Northside, said people can pray however they want in their houses of worship but should respect the state's variety of faiths when leading a Statehouse invocation. Armstrong said legislative leaders rejected an effort he and other clergy made to settle the matter out of court. He said he thinks they wanted to exploit the issue for political reasons.

"For me the larger issue, and the disappointment, is I think this is one more wedge useful at election time for energizing a political base," Armstrong said.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, named a defendant in the lawsuit filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four citizens, said the compromise was offered late in the process and offered the same kind of prayer censorship that he sees in Hamilton's court ruling.

"Any inference that this was done for political gain is truly insulting," said Bosma, R-Indianapolis.

The Rev. Lewis Galloway, pastor at Second Presbyterian Church on the Northside, welcomed the judge's decision but said political leaders forced the issue into court by being unwilling to bend. Now, he fears the public fight will cause more political and religious polarization. Galloway said he was shocked to read the prayers that were offered by certain ministers in their House invocations, including some that spoke of the need for everyone to follow Jesus.

"I would pray that in my church, but I would not use that kind of language in a public forum," Galloway said. "Jesus practiced hospitality to all people. When we are in situations where there are diverse faiths and ideas, opinions and ethnic groups represented, then we need to practice as Jesus did."

The Rev. John F. Ramsey Sr., senior pastor at New Life Worship Center at Lafayette Square Mall, is in the position of having complied with what the judge has now ordered while finding that guideline "offensive."

Ramsey gave a Statehouse invocation earlier this year. He said he didn't try to convert anyone and didn't invoke the name of Jesus, instead closing his prayer "in your name."

"I chose to do that in a setting like that because that's where I feel those types of prayers can have a good impact without being offensive, while at the same time not compromising my faith in God," he said.

Ramsey said he could just as easily have been led by the spirit to pray "in Jesus' name." But he would have rejected the idea of being told to avoid the name of Jesus up front. It would have put him in a box, he said.

"For you to tell me how to do it is offensive to me," Ramsey said.

Now, if offered an invitation to give a future Statehouse invocation, Ramsey said he would decline.

"That is where they have to trust our spiritual leadership," he said. "I should have the liberty to close the prayer 'in your name' or 'in Jesus' name.' "

Religious Tolerance Takes a Hit

Our position: Federal judge should not have made himself a censor of religious leaders' prayers.

Editorial, Indianapolis Star, December 2, 2005

Tolerance should run both ways.

Yet in the name of promoting tolerance, federal Judge David Hamilton was terribly intolerant of those Christians who believe that their faith instructs them to pray in the name of Jesus Christ.

Hamilton, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, has forbidden religious leaders from invoking the name of Jesus in opening prayers before the state House of Representatives.

The issue isn't whether prayer should take place in the House chambers. All parties, including Hamilton, agreed that the practice is constitutional.

The matter also should not have hinged on whether some listeners found the prayers to be offensive. Although graciousness should be the goal of guests invited to address a public body, government cannot guarantee that all listeners will be shielded from every possible offense.

Hamilton noted that Christian leaders delivered 41 of the 53 prayers during the 2005 legislative session. That's 77 percent. But surveys consistently indicate that more than 80 percent of Hoosiers identify themselves as Christians. If anything, House leaders took steps to ensure that minority faiths were over-represented in the official prayers.

The real question in this case is whether a federal judge has the authority to censor the prayers of religious leaders. Hamilton contends that even private individuals give up their First Amendment rights when they stand before "an official platform like the Speaker's podium.'' Yet, if the First Amendment means anything, it is that government, including the courts, does not have the power to regulate a private citizen's religious or free speech rights. And those rights are not surrendered simply because an individual has entered a government building.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, the defendant in the case, calls the judge's ruling "intolerable.'' That's a fitting description of a decision that turns the virtue of religious tolerance on its head.

Ruling that banned Christ's name in legislature is appealed

Baptist Press, December 15, 2005

Speaker Brian C. Bosma said Dec. 14 that Indiana's attorney general will ask U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton to reconsider his Nov. 30 ruling and to suspend the order pending an appeal. Bosma said he would appeal the case to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court, if possible.

"I believe it's a critical fight, really a cultural fight, for not just our state, but our nation today," Bosma, a Republican, was quoted as saying in the South Bend Tribune. "I don't desire to be on the cutting edge of that, but this ruling overreaches so far I believe it has to be vigorously fought." Click here to go to the report.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.