Decline of Christendom

The USA was established as a Christian nation with Christian ideals and way of life, idiotic politicians allowed non Christians to enter the country who initially have reached a stage where they can pressurise their demands that their religion has equal status but are on the road to demanding the replacement of our Christian traditions with theirs.

In Australia an Islamic party has been formed and an attempt has already been made to register it as a political party with the obvious intention of replacing our way of life.

For those who oppose capital punishment they might like to consider what punishment should be meted out to those politicians from the time of Whitlam who have created the conditions now existing in this country which are eroding our lifestyle.

  

 

Court outlaws civic prayer in the name of Jesus

 

A federal court in Indianapolis USA ruled that the Indiana state legislature--and by extension others--cannot permit sessions to be opened with prayer that mentions Jesus Christ or "any of his titles" (such as "Savior"). If this ruling holds, is it not true that no Christians--who are commanded in Scripture to pray in the name of Jesus--may lead civic

prayers? This also appears to be the next step in something I have been tracing, the rise of a new polytheistic civil religion that tries to draw on all religions while rejecting Christ.

Here is the news paper article

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/NEWS01/512010428

And a link to the court decision

http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf

 

In Christ,

Richard Scott

 

 

IndyStar.com  Local News  Metro & State 

December 1, 2005

 

House prayers can't invoke Jesus

Federal judge declares that invocations advancing a specific religion are unconstitutional

By Richard D. Walton

richard.walton@indystar.com richard.walton@indystar.com

A federal court judge Wednesday barred prayers that mention Jesus Christ or endorse any religion at the opening of each daily session of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Judge David Hamilton found that the House practice breached the clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government establishment of religion. While not banning prayers in the House, Hamilton ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be instructed it must not advance any one faith or be used in a bid to convert listeners.

Hamilton, who based his decision on a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision setting boundaries on legislative prayer, said all are free to pray as they wish in their places of worship.

"The individuals do not have a First Amendment right, however, to use an official platform like the Speaker's podium . . . to express their own religious faiths,'' Hamilton said.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four citizens. The suit contended the House prayers -- a 188-year tradition -- overwhelmingly promoted Christian values.

Rep. Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, who as speaker became a defendant in the case, called the decision "intolerable," "terrible," and "shocking." It violates the free speech of religious leaders, he said. According to the ruling, "the name of Christ will not be said in prayer during the coming session."

But Bosma said he hasn't decided whether he'll follow the order.

"This is an intolerable decision I hope cannot stand."

In an incident that prompted some offended representatives to walk out of the chamber, one minister led the House in the singing of Just a Little Talk with Jesus. This spurred the legal challenge.

Court records filed on behalf of Bosma noted that prayers have been said before

But Judge Hamilton found the instruction inadequate. He ordered the speaker to give more explicit instructions.

"If the Speaker chooses to continue to permit non-sectarian prayers as part of the official proceedings, he shall advise all persons offering such prayers . . . that the prayers must be non-sectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief." Added Hamilton: "The prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal."

Kenneth Falk, legal director of the civil liberties union, said the ruling provides for no penalty against those who violate the mandated guidelines while giving the prayer. He said the ruling merely acknowledges that the U.S. is not an exclusively Christian nation and that government-sanctioned, sectarian prayer will not be permitted.

Daniel Conkle, a professor of law at Indiana University in Bloomington, said the ruling could have ramifications for other government bodies that have prayer to open meetings, such as city councils.

Mixed response

Dozens of religious leaders, including Christians, have signed a statement saying that House prayers should honor religious diversity. The document has been sent to Bosma and to Senate President Pro Tem Robert Garton, R-Columbus.

Rabbi Jon Adland, Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, praised the court decision. He was among those who submitted affidavits on behalf of the ICLU.

Adland said he has been a strong advocate for the separation of church and state. That doesn't mean, he added, that there can be no prayers in public buildings. But, he said, "if you're going to have prayer it has to be inclusive of all people."

Imam Umar Al-Khattab, of the Masjid Al Fajr on Cold Spring Road, said he doesn't think it's unreasonable to ask religious leaders to offer House prayers applicable to all faiths. "When you say Jesus or Buddha that's exclusive," he said.

However, the Rev. Clarence Brown of Bedford, who led the House in singing Just A Little Talk with Jesus, thinks the decision "infringes on the Christian."

The court ruling also drew criticism from former House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, a Democrat who is now the minority leader. Bauer, D-South Bend, said this issue transcends partisanship and that he would back Bosma if he chooses to appeal.

"I think it's untenable," Bauer said. "It's a question of excluding all religions, and that's where the error lies. I don't think you forsake religion."

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of government bodies to open sessions with a prayer, noting the "unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years." But in the 1983 high court decision, the justices said the prayers can't promote one religion over another or disparage any other religion. The justices also ruled the prayers cannot be used in an attempt to convert.

Hamilton found that "the consistently sectarian prayers" of the Indiana House go far beyond what that ruling permits.

"The prayer opportunities have frequently and consistently been used to advance the Christian religion," he said.

 

Star reporters Michele McNeil, Mary Beth Schneider and the Associated Press contributed to this story.
Call Star reporter Richard D. Walton at (317) 444-6289.

 

 

3