Prayer in public places

[Sojourner]

In our state's last legislative session, a preacher opened one day with a rousing rendition of "Just a little talk with Jesus." The Indiana Civil Liberties Union, our ACLU chapter, filed suit, saying the state was going beyond constitutional rights in allowing pray-ers to invoke the name of Christ in their opening prayers. The legislature said, "We've been doing it this way for 200 years."

A federal judge yesterday sided with the ICLU. [url="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/0/NEWS01"]Here's the story.[/url]

The new rules the judge set out for prayers are:
[quote]• The invocations must be nonsectarian.
• They must not be used to try to convert others to a particular faith or to advance any faith over another.
• They must not use Jesus Christ's name or title, or any other denominational appeal.[/quote]

A couple excerpts from the ruling:
[quote]• "When the founders of this nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . The founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths."
• While the boundary between permissible and impermissible legislative prayer may not be a precisely drawn one, the current legislative prayer practices of the Indiana House "are well outside the boundaries" established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 and subsequently upheld by lower courts.
• "The court recognizes that the relief granted in this case might make it difficult or even impossible for some clergy or believers to offer official (House) prayers." But the alternative to banning sectarian prayers "would be a complete prohibition on legislative prayer."[/quote]

So what say you all in response to this? Is it a good compromise?

And here's another question: Should there even [i]be[/i] a prayer to open daily sessions of the Indiana House -- or any governmental legislative body, for that matter?

[Brother Adam]

Ugh. It upsets me when the non-establishment cause to attack religion. Invoking Christian prayer at a house meeting DOES NOT establish state religion!

what anchor coined the phrase "Give me a break"?

Well... GIVE ME A BREAK!

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 10:36 AM']Ugh. It upsets me when the non-establishment cause to attack religion. Invoking Christian prayer at a house meeting DOES NOT establish state religion!

what anchor coined the phrase "Give me a break"?

Well... GIVE ME A BREAK!
[right][snapback]806881[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Why doesn't it show some sort of state support for religion? Someone is praying a) on governmental property; b) during a legislative session; c) to an assembly of legislators; and d) specifically invoking a particular religion.

I'm not meaning to attack, but I'm very interested in hearing why this wouldn't be at least endorsing a particular religion, especially given the following:
[quote]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."[/quote]

[Matty_boy]

You could start by saying that the US Constitution only allows a freedom OF religion, not a freedom FROM religion. Separation of Church and State does not exist in the US Constitution. blah blah blah. If they outlaw praying in public, do it anyways. The law is unjust therefore we are not required to obey. (That's not the whole criteria for not obeying laws but it works in this case.)

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2005, 11:39 AM']Why doesn't it show some sort of state support for religion? Someone is praying a) on governmental property; b) during a legislative session; c) to an assembly of legislators; and d) specifically invoking a particular religion.

I'm not meaning to attack, but I'm very interested in hearing why this wouldn't be at least endorsing a particular religion, especially given the following:
[right][snapback]806884[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

because the state in its official capacity is not passing laws establishing or endorsing any various religion. If all of the members of congress are Christian, and they pray Christian prayers, so be it. The house is however not 'endorsing' Christianity via vis law. They are not prohibiting anyone from practicing what religion they will.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 10:46 AM']because the state in its official capacity is not passing laws establishing or endorsing any various religion. If all of the members of congress are Christian, and they pray Christian prayers, so be it. The house is however not 'endorsing' Christianity via vis law. They are not prohibiting anyone from practicing what religion they will.
[right][snapback]806895[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

OK, but they're still defacto allowing one religion more stage time than others, showing a preference. While it may not be a law, per se, isn't it still establishing it by setting a precedent? The legislators did, after all, argue in support of their position because they'd been doing it that way for 200 years.

And why do we need to have a prayer before a daily session at all? Can't all these Christian lawmakers pray individually on their way to the Statehouse?

[philothea]

I'd rather have no prayer than some wishy-washy "non-sectarian" prayer. What the heck is that supposed to be? It'll offend atheists just the same anyhow.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 1 2005, 11:58 AM']I'd rather have no prayer than some wishy-washy "non-sectarian" prayer.  What the heck is that supposed to be?  It'll offend atheists just the same anyhow.
[right][snapback]806951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My thoughts exactly.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2005, 11:03 AM']OK, but they're still defacto allowing one religion more stage time than others, showing a preference. While it may not be a law, per se, isn't it still establishing it by setting a precedent? The legislators did, after all, argue in support of their position because they'd been doing it that way for 200 years.

And why do we need to have a prayer before a daily session at all? Can't all these Christian lawmakers pray individually on their way to the Statehouse?
[right][snapback]806911[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would not say it was not a defacto setting one religion over another by allowing the Name of Jesus to be said allowed, because it is not setting it into law. That is what the constitution means, as Mattyboy pointed out.

Moreover, it would only be showing a preference of the state legislators if they forcively denied another's religion to be prayed out loud. Since that did not happen, no preference.


Infact if you do not like wishy washy generic prayer, iviting many facets of all represented religions would be a great way to avoid that.

Noone in the state must believe in Jesus according the human law set down, and that is what is the key of having a secular gov. The gov is not secular in the sense that it must deny religion.

Furtehr to deny any one religion or all religion would be defacto denying all religion. That is extremely dangerous for a state to do.

[Timothy]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 1 2005, 11:58 AM']I'd rather have no prayer than some wishy-washy "non-sectarian" prayer.  What the heck is that supposed to be?  It'll offend atheists just the same anyhow.
[right][snapback]806951[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I 2nd the motion

[jezic]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 1 2005, 10:30 AM']In our state's last legislative session, a preacher opened one day with a rousing rendition of "Just a little talk with Jesus." The Indiana Civil Liberties Union, our ACLU chapter, filed suit, saying the state was going beyond constitutional rights in allowing pray-ers to invoke the name of Christ in their opening prayers. The legislature said, "We've been doing it this way for 200 years."

A federal judge yesterday sided with the ICLU. [url="http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/0/NEWS01"]Here's the story.[/url]

The new rules the judge set out for prayers are:
A couple excerpts from the ruling:
So what say you all in response to this? Is it a good compromise?

And here's another question: Should there even [i]be[/i] a prayer to open daily sessions of the Indiana House -- or any governmental legislative body, for that matter?
[right][snapback]806873[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

how can the court grant power to itself?

[jezic]

While the boundary between permissible and impermissible legislative prayer may not be a precisely drawn one, the current legislative prayer practices of the Indiana House "are well outside the boundaries" established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983 and subsequently upheld by lower courts.

and when has the supreme court been so supreme as to decide that it can tell the legislature what to do?

I thought it was separate but equal branches of government, not courts rule everything.....

law review is understandable but these would be the rules that the legislature adopted based on our current system of government, rule of the MAJORITYY and RIGHT of the minority. I do not see how this was violated here.

If the majority are Christian than the majority of the prayers would be Christian, but if they are Islamic then the prayers would be as well.

Edited December 1, 2005 by jezic

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jezic' date='Dec 1 2005, 01:59 PM']how can the court grant power to itself?
[right][snapback]807118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How do you see the court granting power to itself in this instance?

[quote name='jezic' date='Dec 1 2005, 01:59 PM']and when has the supreme court been so supreme as to decide that it can tell the legislature what to do?

I thought it was separate but equal branches of government, not courts rule everything.....

law review is understandable but these would be the rules that the legislature adopted based on our current system of government, rule of the MAJORITYY and RIGHT of the minority. I do not see how this was violated here.

If the majority are Christian than the majority of the prayers would be Christian, but if they are Islamic then the prayers would be as well.
[right][snapback]807118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The court's role is to interpret the constitutional and legislative guidelines which have been set up and apply these to conflicts. If legislators are acting outside the bounds of the law, the court is well within its rights to reprimand them.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 1 2005, 12:19 PM']I would not say it was not a defacto setting one religion over another by allowing the Name of Jesus to be said allowed, because it is not setting it into law. That is what the constitution means, as Mattyboy pointed out.

Moreover, it would only be showing a preference of the state legislators if they forcively denied another's religion to be prayed out loud. Since that did not happen, no preference.
Infact if you do not like wishy washy generic prayer, iviting many facets of all represented religions would be a great way to avoid that.

Noone in the state must believe in Jesus according the human law set down, and that is what is the key of having a secular gov. The gov is not secular in the sense that it must deny religion.

Furtehr to deny any one religion or all religion would be defacto denying all religion. That is extremely dangerous for a state to do.
[right][snapback]806969[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's not that it's setting it into law, it's that it's a sectarian prayer being said during a legislative session.

This all begs the question of the role of religion in the public square -- is there something inherently wrong about group prayers to a specific deity in a secular setting?

This court seems to think there is something wrong with that -- the order prohibits specific mention of Jesus or any other specifically religious name.

[jezic]

the court granting power to itself is one of my questions about our whole system.

The power of legislative review was established by a lawsuit against Thomas Jefferson (i think.) In its current scope i strongly do not believe this power was granted by the Constitution. I might be wrong here but i do want to understand.

I do no see how the legislative guidelines would be unfair if they allowed a person to pray. As long as the member was chosen by the proper process as laid out in the rules, why can they not pray in the way that they want to?

Why is it the place of a court to place limits on what people can say as long as the guidelines established by the majority in the legislature allow it?

Edited December 1, 2005 by jezic