Federal Judge: Ban on prayer in StateHouse stands

[hippiechick]

"Willful obtuseness" ... that's a good way to describe Bosma, IMO !!! :rofl:
... and here we go with another frivolous GOP lawsuit ... yet they blame the 'liberals' for the clogging of the court system. :eyes:

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051229/NEWS02/512290459/1006/NEWS01


Judge: Ban on prayer stands
Indiana's House speaker sought clarification and vows appeal to 7th Circuit Court

By Richard D. Walton
[email protected]

A federal court judge on Wednesday denied a request to amend his ruling banning sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives, clearing the way for an appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

U.S. District Judge David Hamilton rejected arguments by House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, that Hamilton's ruling was too vague to enforce.

And Hamilton issued a warning:
"If the speaker or those offering prayers seek to evade the injunction through indirect but well understood expressions of specifically Christian beliefs, the audience, the public, and the court will be able to see what is happening. In that unlikely event, the court will be able to take appropriate measures to enforce" the injunction.

Hamilton earlier this month found that the House practice of offering a prayer at the start of each day's session breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars the government establishment of religion. The House prayers, he ruled, were overwhelmingly Christian in content and amounted to the advancement of one religion over others. The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

The judge ordered that anyone chosen to give the invocation must not advance any one faith. He forbade the person saying the prayer from "using Christ's name or title" or making any other denominational appeal.

Despite Hamilton's intent to also prevent the promotion of non-Christian religions, Bosma had asked for clarification on whether the prohibition "refers to Christendom as a whole, or is more limited and means only that there should be no appeals on behalf of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism, for example."

Responded Hamilton in Wednesday's ruling: "This later question seems to reflect almost a willful obtuseness. As is evident through the opinions of this court and other courts . . . official prayers that endorse Christianity in general violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is not limited to preferences for particular Christian denominations."

Bosma has said that, if necessary, he will take his fight against Hamilton's ban on sectarian prayer to the Supreme Court. ( :eyes: )