JUDGES VS THE FOUNDERS:

Jesus vs. Allah: The fight over God's secular title. (Dahlia Lithwick, Nov. 22, 2009, Slate)

Bosma questioned the practice of opening state legislative sessions with sectarian Christian prayers that included a prayer for worldwide conversion to Christianity. Hamilton found this to be a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause because it was government speech that favored one religious sect over another. In a post-­judgment order, Hamilton also wrote that the "Arabic word 'Allah' is used for 'God' in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures" and that 'Allah' was closer to "the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-­sectarian prayers" than Jesus Christ. Hamilton, himself a Christian, also added that "if and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court."

For these words of clarification, Hamilton has been pilloried for months as a judge determined to chase Christians out of the public square in order to make more space for Muslims. In an interview last spring with Christianity Today, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Hamilton had ruled that "saying the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK." That's factually true... [...]

The real problem here isn't Hamilton but the fiction, built into the Supreme Court's religion jurisprudence, that there can be such a thing as a neutral, non­sectarian religious invocation that will make everyone present feel both included and respected.

Congressional Chaplains Being Challenged in Court (VOA News, 28 November 2002)

When the members of the first U.S. Congress convened in New York City in March of 1789, one of the very first actions they took was to approve the first amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees that Congress will not make any laws regarding the establishment of a national religion. Yet, just one week after approving that amendment, the Congressmen also voted to hire two chaplains, one for the House, and one for the Senate.

Presidential Prayers: To Whom It May Concern (Maggie Gallagher, 1/14/09, Real Clear Politics)

The granddaddy of all inaugural prayers took place in September 1774 at the First Continental Congress. It was a New Yorker (even back then!) who, according to John Adams, first objected to a proposal to open with prayer, saying, "We were so divided in religious sentiments -- some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists -- that we could not join in the same act of worship."

Then something wonderfully and distinctively American happened: "Mr. Samuel Adams arose and said that he was no bigot and could hear a prayer from any gentleman of piety and virtue who was at the same time a friend to his country."

So the next morning America's founding fathers bowed their heads as an Episcopal clergyman prayed fervently "for America, for the Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially the town of Boston" (then under attack).

"It was enough," said John Adams, "to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old, grave, pacifist Quakers of Philadelphia."

A prayer isn't a law, nevermind an Establishment.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 22, 2009 9:54 AM