Published: December 02, 2005 12:15 am            

Prayer decision hits close to home

City council may revise policy on visiting clergy’s prayers.

Even as state leaders were planning an appeal of a federal court ruling on legislative prayers Thursday, Kokomo officials were pondering possible ramifications of the ruling on local meetings.

U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton issued a permanent injunction Wednesday barring sectarian prayer as part of the official business of the Indiana House.

The ruling directed House leaders to advise those giving invocations not to advance one faith and not to use Christ’s name or title.

Pastor David Leeder, of First Church of the Nazarene in Kokomo, who has given invocations before both the House and Kokomo Common Council this year, said the ruling would put many Christian ministers “in an almost impossible situation.”

On both occasions, Leeder invoked Jesus’ name, something he said he sees as a necessary part of any Christian prayer.

“My Bible tells me to approach the Father through the Son. If we can’t make our prayer through [Jesus], it really is an impossible situation,” Leeder said. “To me, it’s almost a form of discrimination against Christians.”

David Conkle, a professor of law at Indiana University, said Hamilton’s decision would apply to prayers made before local assemblies as well as the legislature.

Legislative prayer, Conkle said, is a special exception to the Establishment Clause contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“The Supreme Court says legislative prayer is distinctive because of a very deep and long history that goes back to our founding fathers,” Conkle said.

At the same time, he said, Supreme Court rulings have determined that legislative prayers are still considered “government speech” under the Constitution, and are subject to constraints by the Establishment Clause.

Hamilton’s ruling is an attempt to further define those constraints on legislative prayer, he said.

“My sense is that Hamilton is doing his very best to comply with what the Supreme Court has said,” Conkle said. “At the same time, I think it’s reasonable to be critical here. It’s a tough, difficult issue ... it does impose a kind of censorship on ministers.”

Local leaders joined Thursday in the criticism of the federal ruling.

Mayor Matt McKillip called it “yet another example of a fringe group using an activist judiciary to force their nonbelief on believers because they are unable to enact their radical agenda via the democratic legislative process.”

Councilman Greg Sheline, R-2nd, called the ruling “ridiculous,” and suggested anyone offended by prayers before a council session could “walk out the door and walk back in when it’s over.”

Council President Bob Hayes, D-3rd, who led council in prayer before each session for a three-year period, said he began inviting local ministers to give the invocation as a way of encouraging religious diversity. Ideally, Hayes said, he’d like to invite a Muslim imam or Jewish rabbi to deliver the invocation.

Prior to his decision to invite the ministers, Hayes generally prayed without specifically using Jesus’ name. Most of the ministers invited, however, have prayed for Jesus’ blessing.

Leeder, who prayed in November, thanked God “for every blessing you bestow upon us, and most of all for the blessing of knowing your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Hayes, who is expected to step down as council president in January, said council might have to rethink its policy on invocations if the ruling stands.

“I don’t think we’d want to spend taxpayers’ money challenging it. I think we’ll do our best to comply with it. At the same time, I definitely want to continue having prayer in council meetings,” Hayes said.

Whether local ministers would be willing to deliver prayers without mentioning Jesus is another matter, however, and Leeder said he wouldn’t be able to deliver that kind of a prayer.

“I’d either have to decline the invitation, or if I was invited, I would make them fully aware [of what I would say]. If they would not allow it, I would not give the prayer,” Leeder said.

State Rep. John Smith, R-Kokomo, said Thursday he anticipates a quick appeal of the decision.

Conkle said he doubts an appeal would be successful. He said Hamilton’s ruling appears to be consistent with a 1983 Supreme Court ruling on prayers offered before Nebraska’s legislature.

“It’s a shame we couldn’t just leave things alone,” Smith said. “It just seems like instead of promoting a particular religion, we’ve now gotten to the point where we’re promoting the exclusion of a particular religion.”

Scott Smith may be reached at (765) 454-8569 or via e-mail at scott.smith@kokomotribune.com

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.