# Indiana House of Representative forbidden to open sessions with Christian prayer
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [December 1, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560 "2005-12-01T15:12:39Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/1 "2005-12-01T15:12:39Z")
[Chicago Tribune link](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512010167dec01,1,4022911.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed)
I’m surprised this hasn’t made GD yet. A federal judge has just ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives can’t open sessions with overtly Christian prayers. The case was brought by the Indiana ACLU on behalf of four plaintiffs, including one Quaker lobbyist, who were offended by the overtly Christian content of session opening prayers.
> [@Chicago Tribune](#):
>
> Of 53 opening prayers given in the House during the 2005 session, 41 were given by clergy identified with Christian churches and at least 29 mentioned Jesus, according to court documents.
So, PC run amuck and enforced by the courts, or just and fair?
I’m kind of “meh” about the whole thing, myself, despite being an agnostic and a great advocate of secular government. If the laws were written to include invocations to God, then I’d be worried, but opening prayers (not ALL of which were overtly Christian) in a body comprised largely of Christians doesn’t particularly bother me.
---
### Author:  [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/2 "2005-12-01T15:29:36Z")
Just and fair, in my opinion, and long overdue.
My husband is a state employee. Though he personally holds religious beliefs, he refuses to participate in the prayer sessions which sometimes open conferences or meetings. He and I feel that it is a gross violation of the seperation of church and state.
Prayer has no place in government doings, no matter how carefully “vague” references to the particular deity are. Nor does it change matters if it’s “non-denominational” because it’s still adressing a god, which simply has no place in governmental actions.
---
### Author:  [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/3 "2005-12-01T16:16:29Z")
The Indianapolis Star story gives more detail.
[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/1006](http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/1006)
The incident that spurred the lawsuit was an opening prayer by Rev. Clarence Brown of Second Baptist Church in Bedford. Brown led the House in singing _Just A Little Talk With Jesus,_ encouring the reps to sing along and clap their hands. A few reps walked out. A Quaker lobbyist in the gallery attempted to leave, but says security wouldn’t let him out.
The message was clear; If you aren’t a Protestant Christian, you still have to stand up and sing about Jesus. This is supposed to be a state where one is free to be a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim without being coerced into somebody else’s religious rituals.
---
### Author:  [@Angels\_Flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angels_Flight)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/4 "2005-12-01T18:50:12Z")
It’s about time.
---
### Author:  [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/5 "2005-12-01T19:03:13Z")
> [@Angels'Flight](#):
>
> It’s about time.
I was just gonna say that.
What in the hell is wrong with some christians? Why MUST THEY obsess with the public praying? I’m more and more convinced it’s some kind of sickness.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/6 "2005-12-01T19:10:04Z")
I’m not sure that this will hold up if it’s appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the Nebraska state legislature is perfectly okay in opening sessions with prayer.
In Marsh v. Chambers the court said:
> [@](#):
>
> In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an “establishment” of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.
---
### Author:  [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/7 "2005-12-01T19:12:20Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> I’m not sure that this will hold up if it’s appealed to the Supreme Court.
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the Nebraska state legislature is perfectly okay in opening sessions with prayer.
>
> In Marsh v. Chambers the court said:
Sigh…if they must obsess with the prayer thing (which has nothing to do with a large portion of America’s “fabric”, I might add), they should not make it a christian prayer. They should make it a generic “holy moly” statement of belief and get back to fucking work.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/8 "2005-12-01T19:15:14Z")
Now obviously this could be materially different from the Marsh v. Chambers case.
Just taking a quick look at the Supreme Court’s current composition I’d say at least four justices would overturn this decision.
John Paul Stevens was part of the court that laid down the Marsh decision and I don’t see him going back on his previous stance.
The same with Justice O’Connor, she was in agreement with the Marsh decision and I don’t see her reversing her stance on that.
John Roberts and Scalia both are probably given to overturn the lower court’s ruling and allow legislative prayer sessoins.
After that there’s 3 more justices appointed by Republican presidents and only one of them would have to side with the other 4 to get the 5-4 needed to overturn the lower court’s ruling on this matter.
---
### Author:  [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/9 "2005-12-01T19:22:27Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#):
>
> They should make it a generic “ **holy moly** ” statement of belief and get back to fucking work.
Personally, I would have a problem with even that, but I think that Captain Marvel would love it. 😉
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/10 "2005-12-01T19:35:25Z")
> [@AskNott](#):
>
> The Indianapolis Star story gives more detail.
> [http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/1006](http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428/1006)
> The incident that spurred the lawsuit was an opening prayer by Rev. Clarence Brown of Second Baptist Church in Bedford. Brown led the House in singing _Just A Little Talk With Jesus,_ encouring the reps to sing along and clap their hands. A few reps walked out. A Quaker lobbyist in the gallery attempted to leave, but says security wouldn’t let him out.
>
> The message was clear; If you aren’t a Protestant Christian, you still have to stand up and sing about Jesus. This is supposed to be a state where one is free to be a Catholic, Jew, or Muslim without being coerced into somebody else’s religious rituals.
Holy Smokes. That’s a little more serious coersion than a passing mention of our Lord Jesus in a prayer. The balance beween a secular government and the freedom of worship is tricky sometimes. As a believer I don’t want anyone to be verbally pummeled into any belief and yet I want to protect the rights of those that do believe so that they are not persecuted for practicing openly if they choose to. Of course believers can pray before they get there and ask for divine guidence if they want to.
How about a few moments of silence for either prayer or meditation about the seriousness and responsibility of making laws that affect their fellow citizens.
Singing a song about Jesus??? I revere Christ but I’d walk out too.
---
### Author:  [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/11 "2005-12-01T19:59:26Z")
The singing of an overtly Christian hymn does seem a bit over-the-top for a legislative session.
---
### Author:  [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/12 "2005-12-01T20:00:19Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#):
>
> Personally, I would have a problem with even that, but I think that Captain Marvel would love it. 😉
Personally, I do too. But if they could throw in something like, “And incidently, all the atheists think you’re goofy”, my life would be complete. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/13 "2005-12-01T20:04:28Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Holy Smokes. That’s a little more serious coersion than a passing mention of our Lord Jesus in a prayer. The balance beween a secular government and the freedom of worship is tricky sometimes. As a believer I don’t want anyone to be verbally pummeled into any belief and yet I want to protect the rights of those that do believe so that they are not persecuted for practicing openly if they choose to. Of course believers can pray before they get there and ask for divine guidence if they want to.
> How about a few moments of silence for either prayer or meditation about the seriousness and responsibility of making laws that affect their fellow citizens.
>
> Singing a song about Jesus??? I revere Christ but I’d walk out too.
No one has ever told anyone they couldn’t practice their religion openly, off the taxpayer’s time, of course. I think they just have to realize that if they want to be preachers, there are jobs within the church they can apply for. This particular job is about governing.
---
### Author:  [@Bill\_The\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_The_Cat)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/14 "2005-12-01T20:11:03Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#):
>
> What in the hell is wrong with some christians? Why MUST THEY obsess with the public praying?
Beats me.
> [@Matthew 6:5-6](#):
>
> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/15 "2005-12-01T20:11:10Z")
I should make a correction to one of my above posts.
Justice Stevens actually dissented in the Marsh v. Chambers case.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/16 "2005-12-01T20:18:55Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> Now obviously this could be materially different from the Marsh v. Chambers case.
>
> Just taking a quick look at the Supreme Court’s current composition I’d say at least four justices would overturn this decision.
>
> John Paul Stevens was part of the court that laid down the Marsh decision and I don’t see him going back on his previous stance.
>
> The same with Justice O’Connor, she was in agreement with the Marsh decision and I don’t see her reversing her stance on that.
>
> John Roberts and Scalia both are probably given to overturn the lower court’s ruling and allow legislative prayer sessoins.
>
> After that there’s 3 more justices appointed by Republican presidents and only one of them would have to side with the other 4 to get the 5-4 needed to overturn the lower court’s ruling on this matter.
Have you read the specifics of this case as posted by **AskNott**? This goes a little beyond just an opening prayer. There was an attempt to coerce people to sing along with a hymn and to physically prevent people from leaving.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/17 "2005-12-01T20:27:07Z")
I did read the article. But I have to wonder why the Federal judge didn’t prohibit raucous singing if that’s what he had a problem with, he explicitly prohibited prayer in general. Which seems to me to be a clear violation of the precedent established by Marsh v. Chambers. And while some members of the SCOTUS may be up for changing the Marsh decision, typically the court doesn’t like it very much when clearly established precedent is flaunted by a lower court.
We could have a case similar to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, in that it will modify the underlying issue (like Casey did with the abortion issue) perhaps by saying the prayer needs to be nondenominational and there can’t be a coercive element to the prayer?
The Nebraska chaplain that was paid for his services opening the legislatured had testified that his goal was to create a non-denominational prayer, and that may have been a reason the court was okay with the practice.
---
### Author:  [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/18 "2005-12-01T20:32:05Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#):
>
> I did read the article. But I have to wonder why the Federal judge didn’t prohibit raucous singing if that’s what he had a problem with, he explicitly prohibited prayer in general. Which seems to me to be a clear violation of the precedent established by Marsh v. Chambers. And while some members of the SCOTUS may be up for changing the Marsh decision, typically the court doesn’t like it very much when clearly established precedent is flaunted by a lower court.
>
> We could have a case similar to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, in that it will modify the underlying issue (like Casey did with the abortion issue) perhaps by saying the prayer needs to be nondenominational and there can’t be a coercive element to the prayer?
>
> The Nebraska chaplain that was paid for his services opening the legislatured had testified that his goal was to create a non-denominational prayer, and that may have been a reason the court was okay with the practice.
One could argue that prayer in any form is coercive when it’s coming from someone in a position of power. I don’t care how long it’s been going on. It has no place in the people’s government. I fail to see why this is so hard for the preachies to comprehend.
---
### Author:  [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/19 "2005-12-01T20:39:21Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#):
>
> One could argue that prayer in any form is coercive when it’s coming from someone in a position of power. I don’t care how long it’s been going on. It has no place in the people’s government. I fail to see why this is so hard for the preachies to comprehend.
Well, it’s also apparently hard for the SCOTUS to comprehend as well ;). And in the Marsh case it was explained that it’s more than just an issue of how long it has been going on:
> [@](#):
>
> On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights., Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.
>
> Standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, but there is far more here than simply historical patterns. In this context, historical evidence sheds light not only on what the draftsmen intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the practice authorized by the First Congress - their actions reveal their intent. An Act “passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, . . . is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.”
I also think another big element is the court has always been very reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of the other branches. Now, if a given executive action or legislative act is unconstitutional the SCOTUS is more than willing and ready to strike it down. But when it’s internal matters in which the legislature has typically governed itself, the court is highly reluctant to interfere with that.
The court doesn’t want to get involved in issues like “who can say or do what” in a legislature or “is the President allowed to fire this staff member” and etc.
---
### Author:  [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)
#### Post date: [December 1, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560/20 "2005-12-01T21:36:19Z")
It’s just and fair, AND it’s about time.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/indiana-house-of-representative-forbidden-to-open-sessions-with-christian-prayer/333560.md?page=2)