Indiana Legislature gets an “F” in Civics?

The Washington Post reports that some Indiana State Legislature members are upset over a judge’s ruling that sectarian prayers at the daily invocation are unconstitutional and are threatening to defy the court’s ruling.

Basically the judge’s order prohibits the invocation from specifically mentioning Christ and avoiding things like thanking God ''for our lord and savior Jesus Christ, who died that we might have the right to come together in love.''

Apparently the above quote, from an invocation earlier this year, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. What I find interesting is the reaction to the court order. First of all the Speaker, Brian Bosma, has called the ruling “intolerable” and intends to appeal it to the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago. I would think his chances on this one are about zero.

But at least Bosma intends to respect the court’s decision while it’s being appealed. Other Indiana legislators apparently think its ok to defy the court order. The Post reports:

“Terry Goodin, a Democrat who rejects Hamilton's order, is among at least two dozen House members who have asked to give Wednesday's prayer. He said he would ‘absolutely’ speak Christ's name if given the chance.”

What is it about the “establishment clause” that is so difficult for the average conservative Christian to understand?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Simply put the government must be NEUTRAL with respect to religion. It cannot favor one religion over another, it cannot favor one sect over another, it cannot prevent someone from practicing their religion and it cannot favor religion over non-religion.

I might point out that the reverse is also true. The government cannot favor non-religion over religion either.

The fourteenth amendment extends the protections and prohibitions of the first amendment to the states. Technically therefore, not only does the constitution prohibit clearly sectarian prayers, it prohibits any prayer whatsoever.

Now given that some 75% to 80% of the folks in the country say they believe in a god, we usually wink at that technicality. Law suits related to violations of the establishment clause are usually by folks which follow a different religion than the one being endorsed, not by the local atheists.

In most instances the winking results in appeals to an inclusive god figure, or what I like to call a “secular god” (how’s THAT for an oxymoron). The motto “In God we Trust” is a good example as is the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Technically, if one applies the “establishment clause” without winking, these things are unconstitutional, but even most atheists tend to accept this sort of “secular god” reference as harmless.

The problem comes in when one religion pushes beyond that boundary and invokes, as an example, “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” That goes WAY over the line. Our “winking” leads us to a slippery slope and some people feel it’s ok to push their particular version of God. That’s when things get sticky and it’s time to stop the winking.

This sort of reminds me of the story of the dog with the bone looking at his reflection. I suspect the end result will be similar and these attempts to push Christianity on the country will accelerate the secularization of society. At least one can hope it will as that would be a good thing.