Judge Upholds Prayer Limits in Ind. State House

As Brown led the rollicking tune, some members and staffers clapped and sang along.

Several others left the chamber.

"It's a bad thing for a number of reasons," said Ken Falk, legal director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. "The simplest reason is this is the body that represents all of Indiana. If you're going to have legislative prayer, it should be inclusive of all, not exclusive."

That was the conclusion reached by Hamilton, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. In a 60-page ruling in November, he cited precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court and several lower courts in ruling that the "clearest command" of the Constitution's establishment clause is that "one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another."

Hamilton studied as many invocations as he could find from the 2005 legislative session and concluded that a substantial majority were "explicitly Christian in content." He said they represent "a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders."

Of 53 prayers, nine were delivered by lawmakers and 41 by clergy identified with Christian churches. A Muslim imam and a Jewish rabbi each gave one prayer. A majority mentioned Christ.

On Feb. 28, for example, the prayer leader read from Paul's letter to the Colossians, saying, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father."

Hamilton interpreted a March 28 prayer as a call to worldwide Christian conversion.

"We look forward to the day," the speaker said, "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."

No other specific religious faith was invoked or endorsed by the speakers, Hamilton said. In contrast to the majority of the Christian prayers, Hamilton said, the imam's March 8 words were inclusive and were "not identifiable as distinctly Muslim."

In ruling for the plaintiffs against Bosma, the judge cited Supreme Court precedents in drawing a distinction between private speech and government speech on the subject of endorsing religion. Private endorsements are protected by the First Amendment, the court has ruled, while official speech favoring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion, is barred.

Hamilton cited the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1983 Nebraska case, in which the court said the state could pay a legislative chaplain but it also set limits. He also noted cases in South Carolina and California, among others, where he said lower courts have concluded that overtly sectarian prayers are impermissible.