By Ed Thomas
September 8, 2006

(AgapePress) - The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case that one Christian attorney says could affect the right of existence of legislative prayers across the U.S.

A three-judge federal panel of the Seventh Circuit has been asked to overturn a judge's ban on prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that mention Jesus Christ or use terms such as "Savior." District Judge David Hamilton ruled last year in Hinrichs v. Bosma that such prayers, even when delivered by guest ministers, amount to an unconstitutional state endorsement of Christianity.

Brian Bosma, Indiana's Speaker of the House, appealed Hamilton's ruling, seeking to restore the 189-year tradition. The U.S. Justice Department joined Bosma in seeking a reversal of the judge's decision, noting that Congress has always opened its sessions with prayers that frequently include "references to particular religious deities."

Bosma says the federal appeals court recognizes that the ruling, if it is allowed to stand, could affect prayers before Congress and other legislative bodies. "That's why we're fighting this fight," Bosma told reporters. "It really is the larger issue than just what happens in the Indiana House."

The Indiana House Speaker indicates he was pleased with arguments made in defense of free speech and free prayer. "I was very optimistic about some of the questions that were asked," he shares, "and most importantly [the panel's] recognition that this case has much greater implications than just for the Indiana House but actually has implications for every state government, every local unit of government, and even our own Congress."

Liberty Counsel, a First Amendment public-interest law firm, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the matter on behalf of Bosma and the State of Indiana. Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says despite U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowing legislative prayer, the district court ruled that the prayer in this case was unconstitutional.

Mat Staver  ?  

"[In the prayer] they used the name 'Jesus,' and by having 'Jesus' as part of the prayer, [the court decided] it was too sectarian and or proselytizing in his view," Staver explains.

But to make that ruling, the attorney continues, the court had to devise its own test to determine what content makes prayer sectarian enough -- something Staver says the Supreme Court precedent of Marsh v. Chambers has not provided for. That case confirmed a constitutionally protected government acknowledgment of religion. Staver's group feels the district court misapplied the Marsh ruling.

"[I]f the court were to find that a prayer [with] a sectarian or more of a specific religious component to it is unconstitutional but [that] generic prayers are constitutional, [that] would set a very problematic principle," says Staver, "because that would require the government to determine which prayers are permissible and which are not."

The Liberty Counsel founder contends that puts the government "on a collision course with religion" and makes it "the arbiter of what is orthodox and what is not."

Staver's group points out that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer dates back to the nation's founding -- and that as a result of the practice, no religion has ever been established and no argument can be made to that effect.

Associated Press contributed to this article.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.