Since the uproar is about to explode, I want to get ahead of the train on this one: the nomination of David Hamilton to 7^th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Already, the Christian Conservative backlash is started. A Washington Times editorial came out today entitled, “Jesus, no, but yes to Allah.” The editorial goes on to extrapolate Alabama Senator Jess Session’s letter to fellow Senators outlining the opposition to Hamilton’s nomination.  The objection is essentially to Hamilton’s belief that judicial interpretations of the law should be footnoted in the Constitution, a theoretical issue in Constitutional Law; that he is an ‘empathetic’ judge; that he is ‘lenient;’ a ruling in favor of property seizing for private economic development; and, the one that will send the dimwits flying, a ruling that the Indiana legislature cannot sanction official prayer in favor of any one religion.

However, on the final point (objection #3 mentioned in the editorial), the Times, echoing Sessions, writes,

Mr. Sessions noted, though, that Judge Hamilton’s odd ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosma “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ … yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah.”

While we may or may not share Session’s objections, this is (and I presume, will be) a blatant illustration of political spin doctoring. The message the conservative opposition will push is that Sessions is anti-Christian and a leader in the supposed oppression of Christians, and the opposition will drive this home by playing on the popular fear (or disdain) of Muslims and Islam. But, it’s false.

You see, Sessions (and the right) can get away with this claim because in Hamilton’s ruling, he does explicitly prohibit prayers mentioning Jesus Christ. But, that’s not the whole story. First, the House prayers were almost exclusively Christian (appealing to Jesus Christ), except for two of which one was Jewish and the other Muslim. So, given that the prayers were pretty much always Christian, it makes sense for a judge to spell it out because the case was mostly an issue for Christians. Second, Hamilton’s ruling does not only ban Christians or saying Jesus, it bans any that are exclusively sectarian. Below is an excerpt of the 60-page case ruling:

<blockquote>To summarize, the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). ‘The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.’” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605 (1989), quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion. * * *

Conclusion. When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.

All of us who have inherited the liberties of the religion clauses of the First Amendment continue to elaborate on their meaning and application one case at a time. In this case, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the Speaker in his official capacity barring him from permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official proceedings of the Indiana House of Representatives. If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal. See Simpson v. Chesterfield County, 404 F.3d at 278-79, 284.

You see, although explicitly mentioning ‘Christ,’ the conclusion prohibits all sectarian prayer (meaning that the prayer appeals exclusively to one religion, and yes, conservatives, that includes Islam) and the use of not only Christ’s name, but the title or any other denominational appeal. So now, it isn’t just Christians who can’t proselytize in the government, no one religion can.