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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT