Indiana House of Representatives' Session-Opening Prayers Held Unconstitutional

[Stephen Maturin]

Congress, state legislatures, county commissions and city councils all over the country regularly open their sessions and meetings by having a clergyman deliver a prayer. Thanks to the anomolous 1983 Supreme Court decision Marsh v. Chambers, it's exceptionally difficult to get such practices declared violative of the Establishment Clause.

Exceptionally difficult, but not impossible. Every now and then a legislative body overreaches. Trust the Indiana House of Representatives and its unabashedly fundamentalist Christian speaker, Brian Bosma, to do just that.

To Bosma, a prayer just ain't a prayer unless it's heavily laden with Jesus references. Accordingly, the great majority of session-opening prayers in the Indiana House are heavily sectarian. Yesterday a federal district court judge held the practice unconstitutional. From the opinion (PDF, 60 pages):

To summarize, the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). ‘The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.’” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605 (1989), quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

The judge granted relief as follows:

[P]laintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the Speaker in his official capacity barring him from permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official proceedings of the Indiana House of Representatives. If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.

[beyelzu]

sometimes the courts really get the answer right.

like this time.

[D. Scarlatti]

For the record, the plaintiffs are a Quaker, a retired Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics. Atheists like Michael Newdow are something of a rarity when it comes to these types of challenges. I wish the people that are outraged at decisions like this would get that through their impenetrable skulls and understand why there is an Establishment Clause in the first place.

[Shake]

Yeah, but they probably won't because it's easier to have a more easily attacked enemy such as us evil godless atheists. To attack fellow theists is somewhat understandably less comfortable for them.

Also, just to make sure I'm clear on this, this isn't saying that there can not be any session-opening prayers, just that they have to be more non-denominational (for lack of a better term)?

[Ari]

Unfortunately it's hard enough to get some people to understand the majority of these cases are brought forth by Christians, let alone something complicated like the establishment clause. Most people don't seem to understand that the literal words of the constitution aren't the final say on the matter.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Shake

Yeah, but they probably won't because it's easier to have a more easily attacked enemy such as us evil godless atheists. To attack fellow theists is somewhat understandably less comfortable for them.

Also, just to make sure I'm clear on this, this isn't saying that there can not be any session-opening prayers, just that they have to be more non-denominational (for lack of a better term)?

Henceforth, they shall start with "Let us prey...."

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Shake

Also, just to make sure I'm clear on this, this isn't saying that there can not be any session-opening prayers ...

No, Marsh v. Chambers already carved out an exception for these prayers. It's still good law.

... just that they have to be more non-denominational (for lack of a better term)?

In a nutshell, yeah. If you glance through the opinion you'll find a bunch of over-the-top examples of the prayers that were recited in the legislature, including even a Jesus song (during which several members walked out). Around 80% of the prayers over the period dealt with in the opinion were sectarian Christians prayer of a particularly divisive nature.*

* 'We're saved, you're not, nyah nyah.'

[Stephen Maturin]

According to this article, Representative Bosma hasn't decided whether to follow the order. Here's hoping he doesn't. He'll surely make a lovely prison bitch for some lonely inmate.