Statehouse prayer sequel?

November 19, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
UPDATE Nov. 20: The ACLU of Indiana’s Ken Falk said today that the rumblings about Statehouse prayer he’s hearing are disconcerting and that the legislators’ actions will warrant a watchful eye. He didn’t say it, but another legal battle regarding prayer may be on the horizon.

From IL reporter Michael Hoskins: 

Within hours of the mostly ceremonial Organization Day when legislators returned to the Statehouse to kickoff their next session, one of Indiana’s leading lawmakers all but invited a sequel to the legislative prayer suit that tied up thousands of dollars and huge amounts of energy because of a prayer practice.

A year after the decision came down from the federal appeals bench, this issue could have gone with little notice to those outside the House and Senate chambers on Tuesday and what happened in 2005 didn’t have to stay on everyone’s minds as our elected leaders enter what is expected to be a tough budget-setting session. But some wouldn’t let it be.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana had filed suit in 2005 over the practice of opening the daily sessions of the General Assembly with prayer. Some were offended by the references to Jesus Christ. U.S. District Judge David Hamilton later decided that prayers couldn’t mention the name Jesus Christ or any Christian terms because that amounted to a state endorsement of a religion, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Oct. 30, 2007, reversed that decision and ordered the suit be dismissed. The appellate panel decided 2-1 not to rule on the constitutional merits but rather on procedural grounds that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue in the first place. Reacting at this time last year, the Senate opted to perform a prayer and pointed out the suit never applied to that body, while the House cautiously performed a non-sectarian prayer at this time last year in order to not step on toes. The ACLU warned it was going to stay on top of the issue, just in case.

Nothing has changed, except that the full 7th Circuit in the meantime decided not to rehear the case en banc. The issue could have gone under the radar this session, but former House Speaker Brian Bosma – whose office issued a news release at 4:12 p.m. Tuesday and described him as the one “targeted” by the 2005 ACLU suit – brought it all up again. Yes, both legislative bodies did open with a prayer during their afternoon meetings and that was open to anyone there at the time. But Bosma appears to have decided to make it an issue.

He comments in the news release: “I am thankful and grateful for Speaker (Pat) Bauer’s spirit of bipartisanship and inclusiveness in allowing a return to thoughtful and heartfelt prayers by people of diverse faiths. For more than 186 years men and women of faith have been allowed to open House sessions with their invocations of faith and hope. The free speech of all Hoosiers has been protected by returning to this honored practice.”

Allowing a prayer specific to one religion is a symbol of bipartisanship and inclusiveness? Really? Maybe the former speaker could clarify how exactly politics fits into someone wanting or not wanting a prayer at the start of a legislative session where state business will be discussed?

He adds, "The right of the General Assembly to decide its own procedure without judicial interference and the right of men and women to share their prayers and faith with the Indiana House of Representatives has been properly restored.”

It also may be worthwhile for Bosma to reexamine exactly what the 7th Circuit decided (or didn’t decide) when reversing and dismissing the case. The appellate panel did not rule on the constitutional merits, meaning the issue could still come up in some fashion. The ACLU of Indiana’s legal director Ken Falk said early this year, “I would hope that the House doesn't somehow think that this is a validation of the prayer practices.” Falk noted then that the civil liberties group would likely consider filing a new lawsuit with plaintiffs who come into contact with the prayers and who therefore might have legal standing, if the former practices resume.

Despite the fact that the legislative prayers did happen, Bosma seems eager to throw fuel on the fire and create a new legal battle on the same issue.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • here we go again. where is the sensitivity? if i am a Jew, a Hindu, a Muslim, an agnostic or a Wiccan and go into the legislature or the courts, how can i think i can get justice if everything is Jesus this and Jesus that....? the more the focus iremains on this as an issue, the more minorites will disrespect the process.
  • That is just it, if government officials feel the need to press their faiths into government activity who is to say they won\'t do the same on actual matters?
    This is why people are so turned off by Indiana. It isn\'t that we have Christian government officials, it is that we have officials that would press their beliefs on government activity that is supposed to be open to every Hoosier, not just Christian Hoosiers.
    I know many Christians who find this ridiculous and not appropriate.
    Religion is supposed to be appropriate. These officials make it seem like there is a war on Christianity.
    There isn\'t. It is an imaginary cultural war that is cuasing dangerous lashes against small groups.
    I do not ask that my government officials abandon their faith, by all means, practice what you believe and have faith in.
    All I ask is that my government do not serve just one group in the state.
    I ask that my government be secular so it can take care of everyone, not just Christian Hoosiers.
    Things like this prompt me to literally move to more progressive regions.
    As an agnostic I do not feel like these officials or the state government would defend any small group in this state.
    This is not a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Athiest, or Agnostic nation,
    this is a nation of laws and reason.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT