Ban On Indiana Legislative Prayer Struck Down

Today the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Judge David Hamilton’s decision banning prayer in the name of Jesus from the Indiana House of Representatives.  The Court did not even need to take up the heart of the matter (whether or not voluntary pray in the name of Jesus is an establishment of religion) as they concluded that the plaintiffs (backed by the ACLU) did not have standing to bring suit.

Judge Ripple, writing for the majority:

“The plaintiffs have not tied their status as taxpayers to the House’s allegedly unconstitutional practice of regularly offering a sectarian prayer. They have not shown that the legislature has extracted from them tax dollars for the establishment and implementation of a program that violates the Establishment Clause.”

The decision was split, 2-1 with Judge Ripple and Kanne in the majority and Judge Wood dissenting.  The majority even ruled that the Speaker could recover his costs from the ACLU!  This is a huge win for the freedoms of speech and religion in this country.  Former Speaker of the Indiana House, Brian Bosma should be commended for his efforts in seeing justice done in this case, as well as current Speaker Bauer for agreeing to continue the fight. A big thank you needs to go out to the Alliance Defense Fund and the law firm of Bopp, Coleson and & Bostrom.  Through their financial support and legal expertise, IFI was able to file a "Friend of the Court" brief in this case urging the Court to rule in favor of the Speaker.

IFI believes that House Speaker Bauer and Senate President Long should immediately remove any restrictions on the freedom of speech of its members and invited ministers by allowing them to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience and faith traditions, just as has been traditional practice for nearly 200 years.

(Written by Ryan McCann for IFI)

Comments

[IFI Supporter]

Thanks, IFI, for joining the team fighting for faith and freedom. Happy 50th Birthday for Brian Bosma, too, who was a real Statesman during this whole ordeal.

[Thank You Mr. Bosma]

... for not throwing in the towel! I think many people had reluctantly and dejectedly moved on from this sorry, sorry incident.

... thank goodness Mr. Bosma did not.

Thanks to Mr. Bauer. Thanks to ADF, thanks to the law Firm, thanks to all involved.

I've witnessed Mr. Bosma speak on several occasions (including two years ago at an IFI dinner). I find him to be a man who speaks from the heart, stands by what he says, and represents his constituency well. Happy Birthday, Sir!

[Stacey]

Take THAT, Mr. Orentlicher!!

[Friendly Critic]

In case Stacey's comment above is puzzling, Mr. Oreintlicher is the only Jewish member of the Indiana legislature.

[kevin]

Stacey,
David Orentlicher had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Or are you just anti-sematic?

Your comment repulses me. David Orentlicher is a good man and a good Representative. He believes in and prays to the same God we all do. I wish you had a tiny fraction of the class he has.

[Red]

I have to say that I am no Orentlicher fan. If you know me, then you are well aware of that fact. However, Orentlicher never voted against the General Assembly resolution (he simply did not vote on the issue). I think that he took a very gentleman-like approach to THIS issue and we should respect that.

Considering his worldview, background and religion, Orentlicher could have been very outspoken about this issue and been viewed as a hero by his party and peers.

I am extremely apperciative of ADF,the Bopp law firm, Representative Bosma, and even Representative Bauer for their work to defeat insane judicial activism.

Now that Jesus is allowed back in the GA, let's hope and pray that the legislators call on His to help run this state!

[Captain]

I think it has more to do with Rep. Oreintlicher storming out of the House and complaining to the ICLU when an african american pastor sang a song about Jesus (invited by someone in Rep. Oreintlicher's own party I might add) than the fact that he is Jewish.

[Friendly Critic]

Note that the (revised) headline of the Indianapolis Star now says "Court answers part of House prayer". While I understand the desire of IFI and Representative Bosma to spin this is a victory for the right to have arguably intensly sectarian prayer in the Indiana General Assembly (nobody ever question the right to pray as such, that simply isn't what the Seventh Circuit decided. It said, in line with a relatively new Supreme Court decision on taxpayer standing to file such suits, something rather peculiar to First Amendment cases, that in this particular case, the amount of taxpayer money involved was so tangential that the plaintiffs, all just taxpayers, had insufficient standing to sue. I am not sure why Representative David Orentlicher was not or did not remain a plaintiff. Had he been, there is another line of First Amendment decisions saying he would have had such standing. So say your position on the merits won if you want, but that doesn't seem to conform with the Truth that you continually remind your readers you are in search of.

[Red]

Captain,
Based on that new information, I'd have to say that Orentlicher could have acted with mroe tact.

FC,
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. This case wasn't judged on the merits? No, it wasn't. Is that no less a victory? Consider William Wilberforce and the methods he used to help abolish the slave trade in England.

While this case will possibly be heard en banc, based on Marsh v. Chambers those for free speech will have some support for their position (on the merits).

[Friendly Critic]

Red: It certainly is a victory for IFI and others who entered the case in some capacity in the sense that, as you say, anything that delays and adverse ruling, etc., is at least a tactical battlefield win although the final ("mission acomplished") outcome of the war, if there ever is one, may still come out the other way. Any party prevailing along the way, even if it's procedural, may gain the edge because of a possible imbalance in funding resources to carry on the litigation. I have no clue as to how that enters into the present equation. I would say, however, that should the Republicans regain the Indiana House and Brian Bosma goes back to "business as usual" with regard to the specific prayer practices involved, chances seem good that we will see another round in court. Interestingly enough, ideological allies of IFI and Brian have from time to time complained, in taxpayer suits, about expenditures or practices they think violate the First Amendment. So it cuts both ways. They might at some point regret any new case low with respect to taxpayer standing for that reason.

[Imperfect Knowledge]

There is a strong, strong belief among legislators, the attorneys involved in the case, and other top state government officials that this suit would not have been brought without State Rep. David Orentlicher's "storm out" and push with the ACLU of Indiana. This is imperfect knowledge, of course, consistent with the imperfect world in which we live. But legislators -- Dems and Repubs alike -- believe Orentlicher "caused" this suit.

[Stacey]

Kevin,

Your comments are absurd. Anyone who has followed this case closely knows that Rep. Orentlicher is the reason the lawsuit was filed. Stop trying to pick a fight here.

It was a ridiculous lawsuit to begin with, and I rejoice in our victory.

[Friendly Critic]

And realistically, Stacey, why are you so obsessed with Representative Orentleicher? If you were the only evangelical Christian sitting in the Indiana House of Representatives and were subjected to constant references to Allah in prayer, wouldn't you be at least a little preturbed? There are people in this world, even among us, Stacey, that don't believe that Jesus Christ plays the central role in their spiritual lives and in the universe that you do. It's OK to think that Jews, unless they find and accept Him, are lost to the fires of Hell, but that's in the religious sphere, and has nothing to do with their civil rights and liberties under a Constitution containing the First Amendment.

[Hmmm....]

If Stacey were in Iran, I bet she would not feel as if her rights were being violated to hear the name of allah.

[Friendly Critic]

No, likely not......but we all know that Iran is a theocracy, and we would expect that in the Iranian parliament. This is the United States of America.

[Hmmm....]

Obviously, your argument appears to be on point; however, i would argue it is not.

The Christians who wrote the First Amendment wrote it to give freedom to Christians and others (mostly different shades of Christianity), not to strip them of their ability to freely practice it.

[Friendly Critic]

This probably isn't the place to have a protacted discussion to argue the whole issue of the whys and wherefores of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the religious affiliations of the Founders. Suffice it to say here that (and this might surprise you a bit) I have not great quarrel with, in addition to non-sectarian prayer to open legislative session, an occasional reference to "Jesus Christ". In that sense, I am not totally comfortable with Judge Hamilton's enjoining any mention....and suspect that if the merits had been heard, that portion of his decision may not have survived. It was the "over the top", almost "in-your-face" excess of the singin and moving music and song ("Just a Little Walk With Jesus") that was the last straw producing litigation

[The original Hmm...]

FC is right. And I doubt that we want a theocracy -- or maybe some do. Where only the Christian religion is favored by the state, and not just that, but a particular strain of Christianity. Praying in the House was not banned, but excessive displays are what brought this about. Yes, Orentlicher probably left in an emotional state. I would have been just as offended and I am a practicing Catholic. It's just not right.

And that is what lawsuits are for, when people refuse to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

[Hmmm.... (new one, didn't know Hmmm... was already taken)]

The spirit of the law? Remember that church used to be held at the Capitol building and Jefferson was a member!

So are we going to hold church services in the GA? That would be in line with the spirit of the law.

[Kristen]

Friendly,

My understanding is that prayer occurs before the session begins, so no one need be "subjected" to it.

In addition, each member is free to invite someone to pray. Why should Christians be penalized for being the majority? Every faith is welcome, so yes, prayers to Allah are allowed. Judge Hamilton, however, chose to single Christians out and he specifically banned the name of Jesus Christ, and only the name of Jesus Christ. Does that sound fair to you?

[Legal Amen]

Amen. Judge Hamilton restricted the House from offering any prayers in Jesus name -- and His name alone -- and then he detailed an unusually long list of other terms/names for the Savior from the Hebrew (Old Testatment) and Christian (New Testament) Scriptures. If memory serves me, those banned words in the well of the people's House in the sovereign State of Indiana included Morning Star, Son of Man, Son of God, Jehovah, and the like. Very telling that he is the son of a minister (Richard Hamilton, now retired leader of the United Methodist Church at 38th and Meridian in Indianapolis).