U.S. district judge David F. Hamilton upheld the contention that prayers in the Indiana state-house are too sectarian to one group and ordered the members of the House to cease from praying as they do.



interestingly enough, members argued that the specific Christ-mentioning prayers are a part of the history of the legislature. As far as I know, how long you do something does not determine the constitutionality of it. By that standard, one could go back and site a time where slavery existed, where there was no suffrage for women, where......

Not only that, but various members are promising to ignore the judge's finding and pray anyways. Member Terry Goodin has stated: "I won't change my words because of someone in the judicial branch who tells me I must." Great, so individual members of the house think they can ignore the other branch when they don't agree with it.

Washington Post article.
Questions for debate.

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?

2.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?

It does and it goes further. It should not show preference to religion nor discrimination against religion not just a specific one.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?

Yes. Any sort of institutionalized religious ceremony is unconstitutional at a state function. Those representatives who have religious beliefs are free to practice their religion on their own or at their own congregational institution. If individuals wish to have an organized religion ceremony by themselves or with other members they are free to do so, just not on the floor of the House. This would not preclude any sort of personal prayer to oneself.

2.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

Only if the Judge is disallowed to fine or jail those ignoring the ruling. ( I do think jailing would be excessive. )

The ratification of the Constitution, and more significantly, the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment, basis for this decision), occurred in legislative sessions that were opened with prayers explicitly referring to Jesus Christ.

That is both the "historical context" and the legislative reality.

The legislators who ratified the First Amendment opened their sessions in exactly the same fashion that the judge is now declaring unconstitutional.

Does that mean the activities of the session is void? Where does that leave the First?

The judge is wrong.

Yes of course it does but it was never the intention of the founding fathers to bar the invocation of the name of Christ. This is judicial activism, pure and simple.



Possibly, but this is the first time it has created a problem. It's been 188 years since the practice started and I think it's censorship plain and simple. The courts, have no authority to forbid this, they are way our of bounds here.



It's definatly a test of the checks and balance system, this ruling should be ignored. This has gotten completly out of hand, the court has overstepped its bounds.

Phaedrus, I disagree with nearly everything you’ve said.

From Nebraska’s original link:



Please note that the people who filed the suit were all part of the Christian community.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...rotests_in_ind/

Although Jewish and Muslim people make up a small percentage of Indiana’s population, one could make a case that The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority from the majority.

I find it obnoxious that the legislators in Indiana are determined to mention Jesus’ name while doing state business. What offends me even more is that they are using the word “Christ.” Secular history confirms that a man named Jesus lived. Whether he was a “god,” “Christ” or whatever is open to debate.

Moreover it simply amazes me that there are people who seem think “Christianity” is going do dry blow away if government officials are not promoting it. A casual stroll through Sam’s or Walmart reveals an abundance of “Christian” materials—all sorts of Bible translations, the Left Behind Series, and the books of Hal Lindsay, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, for example. There's plenty of that stuff, but I haven't seen Doris Kearns Goodwin's new book on Abraham Lincoln or H. W. Brand's biography of Andrew Jakson at Walmart.

It’s fine to have faith. I don’t have much if any, but I do accept it in others. In my opinion a person’s faith isn’t worth much if it must be propped up by government.

Pretty open-and-shut case here. Any opinion on religion expressed by a governmental body, or an individual acting in a governmental capacity, is always wrong. Even a supposedly "non-sectarian" prayer, addressed to an undefined deity, is always wrong. An openly Christian prayer is even more clearly a violation. Whatever the "founding fathers" did is irrelevant, whatever has been going on in the Indiana legislature for two centuries is irrelevant, the percentage of the population professing Christianity is irrelevant. Government and religion must never mix in any way. So much for the first and second questions for debate.

If members of the legislature choose to directly violate this judgment, their action will carry consequences. This is nothing new. How many times have we seen a case where some governmental body uses public funds to defend a practice which they know will be ruled a violation of the separation of church and state? The same thing will happen here, if members of the Indiana legislature foolishly choose to follow the same useless pathway. There is no real threat to the separation of powers.

The ACLU is not a part of the Christian community and they are the biggest judicial activists in the United States. I think this went too far, that's about it. I realize that there is a danger of sectarian endorsement and that this is the primary reason we have the First Amendment. Some knucklehead singing 'have a little talk with Jesus' does not strike be as a threat to the Bill of Rights. I think it may well indicate he has some kind of a screw loose but that is not the same thing as the traditional prayers that have been offered.

It did occur to me when I heard this what would be the reaction if someone prayed in Mary's name. Personally, I find the practice rather strange and I was shocked the first time I heard someone do it. I don't know if Muslims are asked to give prayers but I imagine they would invoke the name of Allah. I still think this infringes on free exercise and it should be realized that the First Amendment was meant to prevent exactly that.

It's not like I don't understand the point you are making, up to a point I actually agree with it. Infringing on the free exercise of religion is just as wrong as endorsement of sectarian doctrine. The First Amendment forbids both, or at least it used to.

Let us remember that a representative of the People is the People and as such have as much individual liberty as a citizen. When the Congress, any congress is in session, they are we the people in session. As such this congress may pray, may invoke God and his Power. They may exercise their religion.

What the establishment clause demands is that no law may be imposed demanding that a particular faith, or religious organization shall be held above any other or below. The law simply cannot discriminate on religion. Thomas Jefferson proposed to the State of Virginia a Bill of religion. In this bill you will find his idea of the Wall of separation. It is a wall keeping government out of religion, not religion out of government.

This Judge is off the reservation. I would remind him that his bosses the Supreme Court do pray and to a secular humanist, any pray is irritating, not just the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord of Most hearts. As to being irritated, there is not any way to stop it, as it is in any division of principles. The minority does not have cart Blanca on this.

Point of fact the ACLU cannot be "judicial activists" because they are not judges. The ACLU is a body of lawyers committed to defending the bill of rights. They take cases at the request of citizens, in this case other Christians. The ACLU has equally defended the right of people to practice their religion and has spoken out against the government sanctioning religion. They have done this because that is what the first amendment guarantees. Most ACLU bashers forget that first part but I can supply plenty of links if you need your memory refreshed.

The first amendment gives you a right to practice the religion of your choice, it also requires that the government stay out of religion.

You are correct. The Constitution of the United States does have two clauses involving religion—the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. Although I think the Founders intended the two to work in harmony, this has not always been the case. As Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther put it in their widely used text on constitutional law, Constitutional Law, 15th Edition, 2004:



Since the school prayer cases in the early 1960s, courts have consistently taken positions similar to that of the judge in this case.

The thing is Phaedrus, you see this as a “free exercise” question and I see it as an “establishment” question.

Let me give you an example of why I think this way. I taught in the public schools for 34 years. I was very happy that the courts had decided school prayer the way they had. As an individual off the clock, I had perfect freedom to espouse any religious belief I chose or, for that matter, none at all. When I went on the clock, however, my job was to teach a specific subject or later as a special education teacher a certain type kid.

Likewise, the members of the Indiana legislature have a right to do anything they want in private. As soon as one leaves the statehouse, he or she can attend church, wear a sandwich board saying “Jesus saves,” or run around town babbling about “the lord” as much as they like. This behavior should stop once they are on public property and being paid from taxpayer funds.



Normally the ACLU doesn't take a case unless an individual or group asks that they do. In this case, the origional article provided by Nebraska indicates that the original filers were 2 Catholics, a Quaker and a Methodist--all members of the Christian commuinity.



This statement borders on getting into “faith” issues, but let’s examine it a little closer.

According to the U. S. Census Bureau, the world’s population is approximately 6.5 billion.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

According to Religious Tolerancer.org, 32% of the world’s population is Christian and the percentage is dropping. By comparison Islam rakes in 19%, but is growing. It seems that Jesus is not only not “the Lords of Most hearts,” but not that of 68% of the world’s population.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Scroll down to yellow table.

Now, just in case you were talking about the United States (you weren't specific), Religious Tolerance.org says that 86% of our population identified themselves as Christian in 1990 as opposed to 77% in 2001.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

While 77% is a sizeable majority, we can’t see into someone else’s mind. We don’t know how many of the 77% are what the late Eric Hoffer called “true believers" or how many are just along for the ride or following tradition.

http://www.erichoffer.net/

Cube Jockey,

I wasn't aware that the term 'judicial activist' was limited to judges, although I probably should have been. I thought is was more of a general reference to people who use the courts to further some kind of legal or political agenda. Thanks for the correction.

BOF,

I just have one more point and I am not sure that I ever had another one. When the clergy step up and offer a prayer I think this should be well beyond the censorship of any court. You nailed it BOF, this is a free exercise issue for me, and while your argument is substantive, I remain unconvinced that invoking the name of Jesus Christ is an establishment issue. It's not like this is proposed legislation and I see no reason to conclude that the Indiana State Legislature has been in violation of the First Amendment for 188 years.

Sometimes the Supreme Court errs on the side of caution, as do the other Federal Courts, and that is a good thing. This isn't a big issue for me and if religious issues were not getting so much attention I don't think I would have given it a second thought. It's just that there is a constant stream of these kind of decisions coming down and this one went too far. That is just my opinion on the subject and I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks in the future.

Have a nice day
Mark

"Defending the Bill of Rights"?!??!!

The ACLU has demonstrated absolutely no interest in defending the Tenth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and certainly not the Second Amendment. Your characterization of them is a fiction, a myth, a spin, one could even go so far as to say "a lie."



Victoria's statement fully and completely encapsulates the malignant instincts of the Left. Nothing matters except what they want.

FWIW, as a historical background, I would direct folks to Article 3, North-west Ordinance, under which the State of Indiana was created, and suggest that y'all consider how that squares with the judge's ruling, and Victoria's paradigm.

Seeing as how they only take cases at the request of individuals it would be kind of hard for them to take a 9th or 10th amendment case now wouldn't it? They also have a pretty detailed reason for why they don't take second amendment cases (and they certainly don't argue against it).

However discussing all of that would be terribly off topic. They do defend the first amendment all the time including making sure people have the right to express their religion. Care to stick with the questions for debate?

It seems you have chosen to find a fault to ignor the truth of the rest of the post.

I don't think there's anything evil about Victoria said. Violating a law for a long time doesn't make you innocent. If a cop stops you for speeding he's still going to write you a ticket if you tell him you've been speeding the last 400 miles. What the Founding Fathers did doesn't apply to law now. Just because Thomas Jefferson grew hemp doesn't mean you can go around smoking doobies. Pointing out logical fallacies isn't malevolent in any way.

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination? Yes, the establishment clause is pretty clear. The government cannot show any preference towards any specific religion.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ? When state legislatures are on the House floor, they are part of the government. If a procedure of the government respects a belief above all others, it's patently unfair. This is a case of the government endorsing one religion.

3.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system? It's ridiculous. This is a nation of laws and when the government itself isn't capable of obeying laws, we're in trouble. I wonder how these legislatures would feel if they had to have a Satanic mass before every session of the State House? They might be a little ticked off.

What truth? Other than your link to an important 1785 Virginia law authored by Thomas Jefferson your post looks like opinion to me. Perhaps you could back up your words with a bit more documentation. That usually lends credibility to one's posts.

It should be noted that Jefferson was not one of the framers of the constitution, though his thinking was probably imported through fellow Virginian, James Madison. The other signer from Virginia was John Blair.

http://www.colonialhall.com/biousc.asp

In this thread we are talking discussing interpretation of the "free exercise" and "establishment" clauses of First Amendment to the The Constitution of the United States.

Judge Hamilton's ruling is consistent with court interpretations on such matters since the school prayer cases of the early 1960s.

References to antiquity seem to appeal to those who buy into Justice Scalia's "originalist" ideas. Could this be how you are trying to make your case?

Yeah, be terribly difficult, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to believe that the 9th or 10th Amendments could possibly apply to individuals.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Having a detailed reason why something isn't done puts the lie to the argument that it is done. Given that the good motives of the ACLU, as evidenced by their dedication to defending the bill of rights, were advanced as reason to accept the legitimacy of their cause, I venture that debunking any notion of their dedication to the Bill of Rights is part of the argument.

If what the actions of the Founding Fathers are irrelavent, then why do we pay any attention to their words? Why should we put any stock into the First Amendment? As for Jefferson growing hemp, there's a huge difference.

Since Jefferson grew hemp, the legislative bodies of this country have seen fit, whether wisely or not I don't know, to outlaw most hemp production. The legislative bodies have not seen fit to define the "establishment clause" in the fashion articulated and advocated by the judge in question, nor by the Supreme Court since the 60s. The hemp situation does not present the paradox inherent in Victoria's paradigm.

The judge's ruling theoretically, and the judge's authority in fact, are based on something the Founding Fathers did. If what they did is irrelavent, then what foundation does the judge's ruling rest upon?

Nothing, but a malignant, malevolent, narcissistic will to power.

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination? No. The Constitution forbids the Federal government from "establishing" a church. Establishment is a very different beast from preference.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ? No. If somebody can demonstrate how such prayers are akin to the role of the Church of England, then perhaps they can demonstrate how they violate the Constitution as written, not the "living" Constitution.

TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

2.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system? It may be, but it could also serve to reign in the judicial branch. Their is an entire body of "law" that now exists, law that was never voted upon by the elected representatives of the people.

Grace and peace, BD

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?
It depends on how you phrase government and government preference. The role of the Judicial branch is to interpret the laws and actions of the other Government branches. In the case of the laws and actions, the First Amendment does apply to keep Government from showing preference.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?
Every Government official is free to practice his/her religion as long as it does not infringe on other people's rights. The Indiana state house prayers would be unconstitional if the Christian politicians actually made a rule requiring every politician to participate.

2.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?
In this case, it's probably a minor threat at worst. I think the indefinate imprisonment of "unlawful combatants" and the espionage on the American people represents a much bigger threat to the Constitution.

I believe that there is a stark difference between prayer opening a legislative session and organized prayer within schools according to the law.

Take Lemon v Kurtzman (71) for example. It established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

If this case were to be used as a litmus test, we'd have to ask some sincere questions. Does the legislature use religion as a basis for collective decisions? Is prayer prior to a congressional session actually a gov't action? Does the prayer inhibit or advance religion?

I would have to say no, no, and no again. If the prayers were held against the wishes of the men and women presiding, this may have been a completely different debate. However, the suit was brought at the behest of laymen and our friends at the yellow-flag waiving ACLU.

Because people happen to pray collectively in a building where gov't business is done, doesn't even satisfy the Lee v Weisman decision, which involves government sponsorship of worship. It's not broadcast, is held purely at the behest of elected officials, and is doesn't infringe on any one's actual civil rights.

It seems to be in line with all other liberal crusades to erradicate religion from the thread of our culture, which is absurd considering over 3/4 of Americans are considered Christians...
Once More for those who choose not to believe...

I mean, it's not like bills are about to be passed and a legislator pulls out the Book of Matthew as a litmus test... (which may not be such a bad idea!!!)

aevans176,

Please...government and culture are not the same thing.

This is a stretch and you know it. I personally would like to eradicate all connections between government and religion. Culture is another matter. I doubt any churches would board up and quit. Religious culture would remain in tact, in private, as it should. While I may be on a crusade to get complete separation of government and religion, I have no desire to close Methodist, Baptist, Catholic Churches or mosques or whatever.

Yes...It says: So, if these government officials made a LAW that showed preference to any religious denomination, they would be breaking the law. Fortunately, no law was made.

Not unless anyone can show me a clause in the Constitution that forbids government officials from saying God...There is no such clause, this is perfectly legal.


Yes, but if it's any condolence, the judge is wrong.


This may be the way you think it should be...but that's not what the Constitution says at all. Unless a religious law is made the 1st is not being violated.

CP

Actually, a civilization is based on Law and law is an extension of the people through government. True, government cannot establish a faith as the only one recognized, but the representatives of the people may bring with them the values of their faith. The greatest concept of liberty is that all culture differences may live under one set of laws, but there is but one foundation, the law of the land creating a culture of one allowing for many.

There is a flaw to separating values from government. Any law is based on a value. If you remove all religions from government, what is left. Secular Humanism is a religion onto itself. Webster, religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,...and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.

No, but it does demand that any religion can participate and be freely exercised. In the establishment clause, the word 'respecting' has great meaning. It clearly refers the establishment to be centered on creating a state religion, period.

No, the representatives are not the government, the laws are. The representatives are the individual persons by multiple extension, or we the people. It is the representatives that have the power to amend the constitution, both state and federal.

It was Abraham Lincoln who spoke to this in saying that if the Supreme Court gets it wrong, there is no reason why two gentlemen could not agree to get along and thus ignore the Court's ruling. As to a government body, this creates a different element of danger. The appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court is done so by Good Behavior and it was Alexander Hamilton in the federalist #78 who stated:

“Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.”

If the judiciary decides to usurp this power, then what are we to do? The only true method provided in the Constitution to check the balance of the power of the Judiciary Branch is impeachment. And that is not an easily accomplished task. Another preferred method is to have time to vote into the Presidency the leader who will appoint a Justice who will go by the law as ratified, Fundamental law.

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?

It forbids them from making laws which establish religious ideas as law.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?

I don't think so. They're not making a law or making others follow certain religious ideas. What they are doing is being annoying and, I think, dumb. Maybe 80% of they legislature in Indiana is Christian, or maybe 90% or 99%; but that doesn't matter. I think that out of respect for others and other religions they could withhold the prayer, or just give a minute before the start of a session to pray. I personally would be put off if I had to sit and listen to a public prayer for a few minutes before starting my job each day.

3.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

I suppose it's civil disobedience? Unless the ruling is appealed or struck down then he is in current violation of the law. I'm glad people are standing up for what they believe, but they must be willing to accept the responsibility of their actions. So if people want to keep praying, then they get fined or escorted off the premises they have no grounds for complaining until the ruling is overturned.

Personally I think a lot of the Christians on this board, and around the country, are freaking out about nothing. Because religious ideas are being removed (or trying to be removed) from our government and associated facilities does not mean people are attacking Christianity. People don't want to see religion removed from American society, they just want to see it in it's proper place; which I think is the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, ect. and home. It doesn't matter what religion is practiced as long as it's done in a respectful way, which I don't think is happening.



How many times have you said or heard someone else say "Do as I say, not as I do."? Exactly, a bunch. Jefferson thought "all men were created equal" and something about the "pursuit of happiness for all" I think, but then again he also owned slaves. Those thoughts and actions don't line up very well. Just as anyone else, the founders of this country were human beings, just like you, me, BoF, Jaime, everyone. They not only make mistakes but they also are hypocritical, sided, arrogant, and put on pants one leg at a time. To hold that something is correct because the founding fathers did it is not a good move. Arguments from tradition are usually wrong and illogical, I prefer logic and sound arguments.

Do you include moral values in this also?

Do you prefer logic for short term effect, long term effect or those that will support your choice of values, regardless? There are those who claim that the Constitution's Article III carries the same power as Article V. You would prefer the winds of today to over ride the laws per ratificaton of constitutional convention and by the supermajority of article V. ratification? Is so, why do we need a legislature whether it prays or not?

I'm pretty sure I know where you are going with that and relgion is absolutely not the exclusive source of morality, it is a source of morality. I'd say that what Devil's Advocate said here still stands.

Cube got it pretty much right here. People draw their morals from different places and experiences with religion being one, probably a major one. People believe certain things, some of which are constructive and good for society and also come from religious ideals. An example might be some of the 10 commandments (i.e. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, ect). The problem comes when you try to make a law which is specific to a certain religion.



I'm not sure where you're going here. I prefer logic and sound arguments at all times, and they usually suit my ideas, so it's all good. All I'm saying is that arguments based on "what has been done in the past" are usually a bad thing (I'm sure there's some time when it's a fine argument). Because someone has done something a certain way the last 1,000 times doesn't make it right or even necessary.

Questions for debate.

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?


Yes it does

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?


Not at all.

2.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

Less so than the judges ruling.

Laws need updating from time to time but that is the role of the legislative branch not the judicial. The judicial can only rule whether a law is constitutional. I would even go as far as to say they can rule on whether an action or issue is constitutional as well.

The fact remains that you can not logically interpret the constitution to ban the interaction of government and religion. Why? Because the founding fathers obviously didn't mean it that way. If they meant to ban the interaction of government and religion then why did they offer prayers in government gatherings? Since they did offer prayers then the Constitution doesn't prohibit the interaction.

One thing to remember is that at the time the constitution was written Islam, Judaism, and other major non-Christian religions were not common amongst citizens. You could probably argue that non-practicing Christians were fairly common but either way the Constitution was probably geared more towards trying to prevent the favoring of specific Christian denominations over other Christian denominations than trying to protect the rights of Muslims, Hindus, or Shintos.

However now that other religions are becoming more common the same concept can be broadened to cover them as well without having to amend the Constitution.

Where the problem comes is when the Judicial branch decides to change the Constitution by prohibiting ANY religious involvement with government. However you take the meaning of the 1st amendment you can not change what the Founding Fathers did and didn't do. They prayed so you can not ban prayer.

There are other parts of the Constitution that are not as clear and the Judiciary is right to interpret them as best they can. But banning religion is overstepping their bounds.



Others have made this argument against using the Founding Fathers actions as a method of interpreting the Constitution. I actually think that slavery is actually one of the stronger arguments FOR using their actions. I also think it provides a great pattern to follow when values change.

1. FF say that all men are created equal but they own slaves.
2. Values changed.
3. Constitution amended to prohibit slavery.

You can't say "I believe in the Constitution" and then say "that part it obsolete so it doesn't apply." If it no longer applys you change it through an amendment. The Judiciary can not change the laws, they can only enforce them. Sometimes they have to figure out what they say first but they can not change them if they know.

In the case of prayer in government meetings we know what the Constitution means. The Judiciary has chosen to ignore this and usurp the perogative of the Legislature. THAT is the biggest threat to the checks and balance system.

Ahh... but to deny that Judeo-Christian morality and its existence in our culture and how that has shaped our laws is absurd. If this isn't the case, why would we have laws barring polygamy, vigilante justice, and the death penalty (in some states)?

Why are the laws in predominantly Muslim nations often different?

Finally, if our nation's Biblical roots don't dictate the predominant source of morality in the US, where does our cultural sense of morality come from? Please provide some documentation (as I really am interested)....

1.)Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?

No, it does not. The Constitution prohibits establishment of a religion, not preference. How do we know this is not "establishment"? The fact that they allow other religious leaders (non-Christians) to lead the prayer points to the fact that this is not exclusionary and hence not establishment.

The judge is wrong here.



This is arguable (I think it is incorrect, but it is arguable), but it does not apply in this case. The prayers offered here were by citizens, not government officials "acting in an official capacity". Notice that this started after a prayer by Clarence Brown "who works in an auto parts factory 70 miles south of Indianapolis".

In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious displays are ok as long as they are non-exclusive. So a nativity with a menorah is okay, but not a nativity alone.

2.)Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?

Clearly not when they are said by ordinary citizens. Why have a prayer that does not evoke the one you are praying to? That doesn't make sense at all. As long as there is opportunity for different faiths (which there is in this case), this is ok.

Recall from the Northwest Ordinance:


I wonder why they mention religion and schools in the same breath?

3.)Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

Since the judge is wrong, I don't think so. To defy him would be conscientious objection. Of course, any law breakers must abide by the consequences of their decisions. The proper course is to appeal the decision and hope for the best.

Throughout this thread there have been appeals to antiquity that try to link law and culture with Christian values.

Jimmy Carter, himself an evangelical, (it is not just atheists, agnostics and secular humanists arguing this position) has a new book entitled Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. Carter seems to think that separation of church and state is itself one of our values--one that is endangered.



More than any other post, the one made by Victoria early in this thread expresses my position.

Again I can understand why you would feel that this is not right today, but that doesn't change the fact that what Victoria says is not Constitutional. As I stated in my earlier post, if you don't like what the Constitution means, pass an amendment to change it. Just stating it is wrong and shouldn't be done doesn't make something unconstitutional.

When the Founding Fathers find nothing wrong with prayer before a government meeting when they wrote the Constitution, then there is nothing wrong with it per the Constitution. You can't change the Constitution just by saying it's wrong.

1.) Does the constitution forbid the government to show preference to any religious domination?

Did you mean domination, or denomination?

As written, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Clearly, some of the people who have given the prayer in the state legislature have been obnoxious and uncaring about the feelings of those who don't believe the way they do. I've run into people like that. Establishing religion is not the problem; the problem is these pompous so-and-so's who think they have been divinely anointed to exploit their time at the lectern. As a result of their efforts to proselytize, freedom of speech for other, less-obnoxious Christians will be curtailed in accordance with the judge's order.

2.) Is the Indiana state house prayers unconstitutional when they specifically mention Christ?

I don't think so. It has been a common practice to invoke God's help through Christ by way of prayer in virtually if not every state house in the country. It is not the same as keeping slaves or forbidding women from voting. While some people find this type of prayer objectionable, no, annoying, it has not been shown that someone has suffered deleterious effects from the zeal of some of these people. Moreover, I really doubt that anyone has been "converted" as a result of one of these prayers.

3.) Is the refusal to respect the judicial branch's findings a potential threat to the checks and balances system?

I think it is. And I think it is time for cooler heads to prevail. From the link:


As former President Ulysses S. Grant was reported to have said:

Yep, you and a few others have been saying this repeatedly. The Constitution of the United States is for practical purposes what the courts say it is. At this point a U. S. district Judge has rule that Indiana is wrong. Undoubtedly Indiana will appeal. Should Judge Hamilton's ruling be upheld through the appeals process, then that will be the meaning of the document regardless of what the founders intended. That's reality.

You are right. I can't change the Constitution by saying it's wrong. On the other hand, you can't change judicial interpretation by saying it is wrong.

I don't dispute your statement here but I do assert that it is wrong that the Judiciary has usurped the authority that it has. This is what I meant when I earlier stated that the judges actions were more of a threat to the checks and balances system.

By what right does the judiciary change the Constitution this way? Because they can. Not because it is their right, but simply because they have usurped the authority to do so. Interpreting the Constitution is within their authority. Changing it is not. That is the right of the Legistlative branch.

What was seen as a triumvirate of equals has become an unbalanced system. Currently I would rank the Legislative branch as the weakest of the three and I think the Founding Fathers actually envisioned it as the strongest. (No proof here just my feeling in the matter.)

I was about to start expounding on my feelings about certain aspects of the Supreme Court but they belong in a different thread.

In any case, the judge was wrong in prohibiting prayer in this case. The Constitution is fine with it. The government body in this case seemed to be okay with it. The judge was not. Who are we to gainsay the judge?

Wasn't Jefferson just tossed onto the trash-heap of history because he held slaves? How then is it that his extra-constitutional "wall of separation" is legitimate? Curiouser and curiouser...



Government and religion must never mix in any way.

I refer you again to Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, legislation passed as the Constitution was being framed. Clearly, the people who were smart enough to give us the First Amendment that y'all are so enamored with thought differently on the subject. Given the success of the system that they created, I'll go with their thoughts on the subject, rather than those who are echoing the philosophy that gave us the Gulags, the Killing Fields, and the Cultural Revolution...

There are three issues here. First, whether or not the First Amendment originally meant anything like it is applied today. (Gakkk, the Originalist BoogeyMan!! ) I contend that it doesn't, and no reputable historian will disagree.

Second, whether or not the application today is a good thing. Again, I contend that it isn't, but 5can And third, if the current understanding is different than the original, is the means by which we've arrived at the current state legitimate? If the rule of law is to mean anything, then the answer is "no."

In closing, for those determined to exclude religion from government, I offer this little nugget of Constitutional text:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Just as you can't require a government type to be of a certain faith, you cannot require that they be, in word or behavior, of no faith.

No, that won't be the meaning of the document...it will be the precedent that will have been decided. It's still wrong and that is the purpose of the thread, "did the state House break the law." And the answer to that question is "no". Whether or not anyone believes that government and religion shouldn't mix is irrelevant, legally it can. So I'm not sure what the problem is if we can all agree [and I haven't heard anyting to the contrary] that this prayer was perfectly legal.

CP

We can't just go by the founders and how they lived their lives in 1789. Back then, women couldn't vote, Africans were slaves, inter-racial marriage was taboo, and the size of the country very small. we've changed a lot since then and have corrected the constitutional problems of slavery and segregation. The founders didn't take care of those problems as others were more urgent(i.e.-getting the nation together!) Their constitutional blind-eye on certain isssues serves no excuse for staying blind and constitutionally inconsistent.

You make a good point Nebraska.

We can't turn the clock back to the time of the founders or any other point in history.

I have a friend who wants people to return to the land. His vision is a small town with square and on that square things like a barber shop, hardware store and old men sitting around playing dominoes, swapping stories and spitting tobacco. It still exists, though not to the extent it used to.

For those with a flair for antiquity, again you cannot turn back the hands of time.

How did they solve the Constitutional problems of slavery and segregation? By amending the Constitution, and then enforcing the amendments! Ditto for women's sufferage. Not by building a chain of Supreme Court decisions that leave us with Constitutional "meaning" that would be unrecognizable to the guys who wrote the constitution.

This is largely irrelevant.

The Constitution of the United States is for the living, not the dead.

I doubt if any of "the guys who wrote" the document will be dropping by to check on it.

This is an entirely faulty way of looking at it.

The Constitution has changed in regards to women voting and slavery (and as a matter of fact, segregation was not a problem back then). The size of the country is irrelevant.

The Constitution has not changed as it pertains to religious freedom. As long as the prayers do not favor one religion (and they don't seem to since many groups have and will offer the benediction), it is perfectly legal.

I am not sure how you can say that this is irrelevant? You are basically saying that none of the amendments to the Constitution are valid when you say this. It sounds like you are advocating that the Constitution be thrown out and we simply install the Judicial Branch as the ruling branch of government.

Unfortunately that seems to be what is happening anyway but it shouldn't be.

Previously you had stated:



What is reality and what is right are sometimes two different things. At this point I believe that there are major issues with checks and balances in the federal government right now. I feel that both the Executive and the Judicial branches are usurping authority that they don't legally have.

To go back to what I quoted you on earlier "The Constitution of the United States is for the living, not the dead." What has this got to do with how the Constitution gets changed? I agree that there are parts of the Constitution that may not apply today, whether due to changing values, or changing technologies, or simply changing times. There is a built in method to fixing the Constitution. It is called the amendment process. It is not call the judicial amendment process or the executive decision process. The only branch of the government that can change the Constitution is the Legislative branch.

Now before you point out again that I "can't change judicial interpretation by saying it is wrong" please note that I am not trying to change the interpretation, but the fact that the judge has no right to interpret in this case in the first place. It's like saying "when he said the sky is blue he really meant that it was yellow." That is not interpreting but completely changing the meaning.

I agree that many things in the Constitution need to be interpreted as it may not be clear what was meant. But in the case of praying before a government meeting we know what they meant to a great extent. They showed by example. The judge has no right to change that through interpretation. The fact that he did it does not mean that it is right.



Again with the argument that the Founding Fathers were wrong? So what??? You don't make a right with two wrongs. I have stated before that these arguments are actually stronger for condemning the judge than for supporting him. We are not debating about whether the FF were perfect beings, they weren't. We aren't debating whether or not values have changed or whether the FF had beliefs that contradict ours today, we are debating whether the judge was right or wrong in this case. He was wrong.

I have yet to hear a valid argument that he was right. He can not change the Constitution. Each of the "problems" that "nebrask29" used to support his argument were actually resolved Constitutionally through the amendment process or through the courts. As was pointed out, segregation can not be found in the Constitution and so the courts ruled. Inter-racial marriage being taboo has nothing to do with the Constitution. I am not aware of any laws that were made on a national level that enforced the taboo. All of the others are a reflection of changing values and so the Constitution was amended to reflect those changing values.

It says the government shall "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercize thereof". I think the most beneficial way to read that is, that the government won't show a preference for any denomination.

If a member of the house, while giving a speech before the legislature, invoked Jesus, he should be protected by the clause that says the government won't "prohibit the free exercize thereof". But when they make the prayer an official part of the house proceedings, the house is violating the principle of showing no preference.

Maybe a better question here is: are the prayers inconsiderate?
Most Christians don't want to be rude, but they don't think of it that way when they call for participation in sectarian prayers while in a religiously diverse group. They just don't know any better. They're not thinking about how their actions are making the non-christians feel.
If you're a Christian legislator, here's a little test for you to determine if what you're saying is appropriate:
First substitute the word "satan" for "jesus" in the statement you were about to make. Now, is that statement something you'd want to say in front of you're church members? No? then it's probably not appropriate to say it in its original form in front of the legislature.

Yes. But if the judicial branch starts putting people in jail for contempt because they are praying... well then I would anticipate there would be even more of a threat to the checks and balances system. Best to leave it alone. Most Americans today, would like to eliminate the first amendment from the Constitution.

I disagree. Most americans are not even aware of the first amendments language. I would hold though that a lot would prefer it to be as originated.

As we are aware, the Bill of rights was held as not necessary for implementing into the constitution as the powers provided to the federal government did not include the power to infringe upon the people, thus the states, any of these rights or any right what so ever, but what was enumerated as the limited power of the federal government, so stressed by James Madison. In understanding this, how do we read the enumerated rights to mean?

In speaking to the freedom of speech, what would those find fearful of the government? What was the greatest power of abuse by nationalist governments in history, silence the masses or an individual from criticizing the government, pointing out the flaws and corruption. The founders held the federal government to not have the power to silence complaint of usurpation of power. Does this transpose over to the right of one individual to slander another, no. It is a restriction of government to not quell free speech against it.

The 14th amendment provided for this protection of the people to speak freely in complaint against their own government, state. It did not extend to the people speaking to the people. As the Honored Blackstone of England referred, free speech must come with discipline between the people. Lying for example is fraud to another of the truth, causing loss. Cussing, using God’s name in vain, was held as an whipping offense under the leadership of General Washington in the first Continental Army. It was very much a chargeable offense, not to long ago, to insult someone in public by assaulting them.

Free speech is a limit on government from holding the tongue of a citizen in speaking to and of the government and their actions. If you think otherwise, I suggest trying to tell your boss where to go and see what free speech between people provides in liberty.

So it has that the establishment clause as well as the free ecercise clause have lost their originality. Congress may pass no law nor prevent the free exercise thereof, including any citizen, in or out of government. We are all free.

No, syfir, I am not saying that the Amendments are invalid and please do not put words in my mouth. The founders, who have been dead for at least a century and a half, wouldn't recognize much of anything in today's world.

If Washington Irving's Rip Van Winkle was confused after 40 years of sleep, magnify that by 4 or 5 time and imagine how distorted the founder's views would be in this day and age.

I stand by my position on judicial interpretatiion. I realize Scalia's view is currently in vogue, but I don't accept his premise.

Scalia's view is not vogue, it is fundamental law as law should be, originated by the due process of democratic principle.

In the Constitution we have reference to judiciary jurisprudence. I refer to Art III, section I which in part reads: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, ...

In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton spoke to the USSC and how appropriate it is for the Justices to be held outside of the political system and how their roll as the USSC provides for an appropriate check to the power of the other two branches. In what is 'Good Behavior' of the Judiciary:

Mr. Hamilton wrote: "The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the