Then came federal Judge David Hamilton. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union brought suit against the Indiana State Legislature’s practice of allowing clerics from diverse faiths to pray for divine guidance before sessions. Apparently the ICLU was protesting the fact that more "Christian" clerics than not were praying for the legislative meetings, and worse, the ICLU perceived that specific prayers could be construed as the legislature favoring one religion over others--thus a form of "religious endorsement." Clerics, from any faith, are permitted to volunteer to pray for the Indiana legislators in public. Officially, no faith is given preference, nor was any faith expressly excluded, until now.

How does one address a prayer to his deity without using His name? How does one close a prayer without using a word like "amen" which might give away which religion the cleric holds dear? We have indeed moved away from the goal of protecting religious expression from government censorship, to protecting government from religious expression.

This ruling would seem to ignore the US Constitution’s edict that government (any branch of government, including the judicial branch) shall not make or enforce any law with respect to a religion, and that the government shall not create its own religious preferences to be forced upon the citizenry. In spite of that precedent, Judge Hamilton has defined what the allowable content of public prayer may be when government officials are present.

It is also reported that Judge Hamilton said, "The prayer opportunities have frequently and consistently been used to advance the Christian religion." Yet, we know that the purpose of the vast number of the prayers uttered over the centuries for lawmakers has been to beg God to favor the land with righteous and wise laws at the hands of these elected officials. That some clerics have used such an opportunity to exalt Christ, or Allah, or Jehovah need not have caused such a far reaching judicial decision mandating what makes for a good prayer and what makes for a bad prayer.

Wiser heads, and cooler, might have realized that if a cleric is deemed inappropriate in his prayer, the legislature has the option of never inviting such a one back. Lacking such a common sense solution, a judge has placed into law the form and content of how we must now pray for the legislature, protecting them from hearing the very name of Jesus, the Christ.

When did the judicial branch of the government decide it had the authority to edit the content of prayers? When did it decide it had the wisdom to know which deities are acceptable to petition in public and which ones are not? And when did the people of these United States vote to give up their rights to free speech, freedom to practice their religion, and freedom to own private property? When did this happen?

Perhaps the question is not properly focused. Perhaps I ought to ask, "When was the last time I prayed for my state legislature at home?" Or, "When was the last time I prayed that my governmental leaders would judge righteously?" Perhaps, just perhaps, it is not entirely the judges’ fault at all, but also my own for not exercising that freedom of religion to pray, to petition God, before such authority was overreached.