To anyone with any interest in Indiana law (yes, Kelby, I'm talking about you) or for those of you go-getters who plan on opening the Indiana House of Representatives with a prayer one day, make sure
(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 ChristÂ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.
My first thought - isn't it amazing that in protecting free speech, it seems that we must limit it? Though I'm of course being facetious here, I would welcome any attempts at explanation that y'all might offer.
Well, I can't say that i'm not suprised by the courts ruling. This is a reflection of the humanistic and legal realist viewpoint that is the "thought of the day." In effect the court is saying that legally you can't recognize a specific higher power in that setting. The separation of church and state MUST be an institutional separation, not a divorce of specific religions from the state. Wow. I could go on for a while, but I have finals right now:( Hopefully this made sense. I'd love to discuss this sometime when we get together Nick!
ReplyDelete