The Indy Star has an article on House Resolution 1 which opposes Judge Hamilton’s decision upholding the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and prohibiting sectarian prayer as official business of the House of Representatives. The Resolution characterizes the decision as “intolerable” and as restraining “religious liberty and the freedom of
conscience and, in conflict with the historic and cherished
rights of Americans, purports to control the specific content
of prayers.” The Resolution is toothless, as all simple resolutions tend to be. After a litany of disingenuous “wherefore” clauses, the resolution ends by “resolving” that it is the judgment of the House that Judge Hamilton’s order is contrary to “the word and spirit” of the First Amendment and that the Speaker of the House is urged to spend taxpayer money on as many appeals as are possible. (O.k., the resolution doesn’t specify taxpayer dollars, but that’s the effect of urging prosecution of “all possible appeals.”)
Far from showing that Judge Hamilton’s decision was misguided, the unanimity of the vote on the resolution shows how important the decision is. The Resolution deliberately fails to recognize that Judge Hamilton’s order was a limitation on *government* speech, not on private speech. The First Amendment is designed to limit government power and to preserve minority rights. Private speech is not at all at issue in this matter. Every Representative and citizen of Indiana continues to be free to pray (or not) as they see fit, so long as they are speaking for themselves. Indiana’s government, however, is limited in its ability to promote a specific religion. The fact that no Representatives are able or willing to tolerate limited government when it comes to promotion of the majority religion shows why it is so important to have limitations on government authority imposed by the Constitution.
I should mention that, according to the Indy Star article, Rep. David Orentlicher, the only Jewish member of the legislature, stayed away from the vote to protest the resolution.
the resolution isn’t about the law and no one who voted for it can pretend that it is. it’s about politics in an election year, period.
Many people do not understand the difference between when the government “speaks” and when they speak. Therefore, they don’t see anything wrong with the government promoting Christianity. A former co-worker used to wear a t-shirt that said the First Amendment means freedom “of religion” not freedom “from religion.” Actually, it means both, but good luck trying to explain the niceties to the wearer of the shirt! It never occurred to that person that no one was stopping him from praying, going to church, witnessing, etc.
Very well put. Alas, I fear lawgeekgurl is right.
I said this over at Topor, but it bears saying again: is this is the best use of their time and ours? I keep remembering when the legislature spent valuable time haggling over yet another legal statement in support of marriage only happening between a man and a woman, never mind that one was already on the books, rather than passing the dozen or so bills that had considerable bi-partisan support. The extraneous law went on the books (don’t even get me started on that) and the bills that everyone liked all died.
Perhaps an amendment should have been offered that replaced the resolution’s support for “all possible appeals” of Hamilton’s decision to “all possible effort” to improve our public education system and economic development in general.