Federal judge David Hamilton rules against Christian prayer in Indiana House
Federal judge David Hamilton rules against Christian prayer in Indiana House
INDIANAPOLIS -- A federal judge ruled yesterday that the official prayers opening the daily sessions of the Indiana House must be nondenominational and may not "advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion."
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge David Hamilton, ordered House Speaker Brian Bosma to instruct clergy or others who say the prayers that they must not proselytize or advance or disparage any faith or belief.
Hamilton said the prayers may not invoke the name of Jesus Christ or make any other "denominational appeal."
Otherwise, he ruled, the prayer runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion.
"The evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion," Hamilton wrote. "The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the (U.S.) Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayer."
Bosma, an Indianapolis Republican, called the ruling "intolerable."
"This is a terrible decision, and I'm honestly shocked," he said. "It goes much further than any other court really in the nation has in dictating the content of free speech, especially here in the House where free speech is held in such high regard."
Bosma said he and his attorneys are reviewing all their legal options, including an appeal. He also said in response to a question that no option -- including defying the order -- has been ruled out.
A matter of religion
Ken Falk, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union attorney who filed the lawsuit against Bosma that led to yesterday's decision, said the issue is not one of free speech but instead whether government can invoke a religious view.
The U.S. Supreme Court set boundaries for legislative prayer in a 1983 case, he said, and Hamilton's ruling simply follows that precedent.
"When a human being steps forward to the speaker's pulpit and ascends those stairs, that person is now the state of Indiana," Falk said. "As the state of Indiana, that person must be inclusive and cannot endorse any one religious faith or belief."
Hamilton's decision applies only to the Indiana House. It does not affect the state Senate, city or county councils, or any other governmental body, many of which also begin their meetings with prayers.
But Falk said it will serve as a "strong precedent" for challenges to Christian prayers in the Senate or local meetings. He said other public officials should take note and ensure that their prayers are nondenominational.
He said that, under the decision, such prayers still could invoke the name of God.
Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton, R-Columbus, said staff attorneys are reviewing the decision to determine its ramifications for his chamber.
"It's a very sad, somber day for Hoosiers that a federal judge is becoming involved in censoring prayer," he said. "And I don't think you can read that decision any other way."
Garton said society is becoming "so tolerant we are intolerant."
Kentucky's practice
Christian prayers also are common at the Kentucky General Assembly. Earlier this year Beth Wilson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said her organization would be watching the Indiana case.
She could not be reached late yesterday to comment on the ruling.
But Kentucky House Speaker Jody Richards said he didn't plan to make any changes to prayers in his chamber in reaction to the Indiana decision. Richards said he believes the ruling "goes too far."
The suit was brought by four Indiana residents -- a Quaker who was then a lobbyist, a retired Methodist minister and two Roman Catholics -- who objected to the Christian orientation of some of the prayers during this past session of the Indiana House.
The suit cited 26 examples of prayers that referenced "Jesus" or "Christ" -- some by lawmakers and others by clergy invited by lawmakers to provide the prayer.
Hamilton's ruling said prayer is not itself a problem. In its 1983 decision, which involved the Nebraska Legislature, the U.S. Supreme Court said that "the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society," according to Hamilton's ruling.
It also said that Nebraska's practice of using a paid chaplain to provide the prayers was constitutional because "there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief."
'Limits' to prayer
In his ruling, Hamilton said that case provided "constitutional limits to legislative prayer." By routinely including Christian references, the Indiana House exceeded those limits, Hamilton concluded.
In responding to the suit, Bosma defended the prayers, saying that historical and contemporary records of legislative practices show that prayers often have been expressly Christian.
Also, Bosma said yesterday, non-Christians sometimes offer prayers as well, which shows the House is not endorsing any particular religion.
"In my years of service in the Indiana General Assembly, I have always appreciated the diversity and sincerity with which the invited clerics and members have led us in the invocation," Bosma said. "The ruling today forbids invited ministers and members to continue to exercise their right to free speech and pray in the tradition of their faith."
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.d
ll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS02/512010391
Impeachment of Federal Judges
The Founders' intent for impeachment was to protect the fundamental principle of "the consent of the governed." The Constitution carries no title but "We the People," and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that standard. (Recall that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of "good behavior." Art. III, Sec. 1)
Posted by Editor at December 1, 2005 02:33 PM
