(AgapePress) - Last week a U.S. lawmaker from Indiana introduced a bill protecting the free-speech rights of those who deliver invocations before that state's legislature. Congressman Mike Sodrel says the measure is designed to serve as a check to a federal judge who ruled that ministers invited to pray before the legislative body and even the legislators themselves may not invoke the name of Jesus Christ or reference the Christian religion.

Sodrel says the federal district court judge ruled in Hinrichs v. Bosma that such references to Christ or Christianity would violate the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States. However, the U.S. legislator maintains that would not be the case since "the state legislature didn't make any law saying that Christianity was going to be the official faith that's observed in the state legislature."

If the Indiana legislature had done that, the congressman notes, the judge might have been justified in calling the state lawmakers' action into question, and "I think he would have been well within the proper course of the judicial [branch] to strike it down."

Under the circumstances, however, the judge's ruling is, in effect, "interfering with free speech on the floor of the statehouse, which kind of violates the separation of powers between the judicial, the executive, and the legislative branch," Sodrel contends. He has introduced the federal legislation, H.R. 4776, as a counter-measure, and believes it will protect not only Christian prayers but any speech that may be offered before the legislature, barring treasonous or criminal speech.

The Republican congressman believes the federal district court judge overstepped his bounds when he ruled that Christianity should be kept out of the state legislature, and that H.R. 4776 will help to restore the balance of powers. "The bill says that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction as it relates to speech on the floor of any state legislature," Sodrel explains.

Also, the lawmaker points out, the legislation makes it clear that the courts "cannot fine a state for failure to observe an order that they issue on the subject of speech and says further that they can't spend any money to carry the order out -- which just basically tells the judiciary that it's not appropriate for them to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate speech on the floor of the state legislature."

The reasoning behind the ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosma is flawed, Sodrel asserts. He believes the federal judge exceeded his authority there and says the provisions of H.R. 4776 simply represent the government's system of checks and balances working the way it should.

Mary Rettig, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.

© 2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.

 

E-mail this page to a friend Printer-Friendly Version