ILNews

Senate prayer draws ACLU's criticism

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lawmakers met Tuesday for what is known as Organization Day, the first day of its 2008 session.

But the mostly ceremonial day wasn't without drama because the opening moments of one legislative body have sparked threats of a potential lawsuit reminiscent of a two-year-old federal suit that continues playing out in appeals. Indiana may soon see the second round of a legal battle involving legislative prayer.

The Indiana Senate opened its proceedings with a prayer to Jesus Christ, with Senate President Pro Tempore David Long allowing a colleague to pray from the chamber's podium. Within a day, that sparked legal threats from the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which had sued the House and then-Speaker Brian Bosma over a similar practice.

Ken Falk, legal director for the civil liberties organization, said that if the Senate continues using a prayer naming Jesus Christ, the group would likely be forced to sue on behalf of anyone subjected to or offended by the prayers.

"Everyone who stands at that podium knows that there are people who aren't praying in that fashion or share that religious belief. It's extremely rude for a legislator to issue a prayer that's exclusive in an area of the state that's supposed to be inclusive to everyone in Indiana."

The fact that the previous suit against the House is ongoing should have been further reason for the Senate to not issue a sectarian prayer, Falk said.

U.S. District Judge David Hamilton in Indianapolis ruled that sectarian prayers or those focusing on a particular religion weren't allowed, though the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided last month that the taxpayers didn't have standing to sue and ordered the suit be dismissed on procedural grounds. However, the suit continues as the ACLU of Indiana is asking the appellate court to rehear the case en banc, possibly to get at the merits of the case.

The ACLU filed a request last week, and the Attorney General's Office has until mid-December to file a reply brief with the court.

In the meantime, legislative leaders in the House have taken the advice of Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter and used a non-sectarian prayer to start its proceedings.

"It's important to do that in order to comply with the order that's still in place from the District Court," Carter said. "While the 7th Circuit ordered it be lifted, the plaintiffs have filed for en banc review, which has the effect of staying the direction to the District Court."

Carter said that while the House is still under that original restriction, and the current Speaker's prayer was in compliance, the Senate isn't subject to any limitations and isn't involved in the ongoing litigation.

Falk agreed that the Senate was never constrained, but he said this type of prayer was exactly what Judge Hamilton had ruled against and that it wouldn't be allowed if a higher court eventually upholds that ruling.

"When we strip away the law and standing issues, it's just impolite and downright rude," Falk said. "If either body of the legislature begins sectarian prayers and we fall back into that pattern, we're back where we started."
ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT