There is actually a nugget of truth in House Speaker Brian Bosma's comment that Indiana is 2 percent Jewish and at least 80 percent Christian. If what prayer is said to open House sessions is not a constitutional issue -- and that is in legal play right now -- then it's a matter of whether what's said is offensive or not. And who better to offend, since there is no constitutional right not to be offended -- 2 percent or 80 percent?
But what value is there in offending anybody if there is no corresponding value to be gained? It should be clear to Bosma -- and his apology indicates it just might be -- that what the Jewish leaders heard was, "We're 80 percent, and you're 2 percent; we can do whatever we want, so go away and shut up now." That's also what people are hearing in the speaker's insistence, now backed by both the House and Senate in resolutions, on opening sessions with explicit Christian prayers.
I'm not sure about Christian prayers being unconstitutional. Yes, the speaker can be said to be putting the state's imprimatur on the prayers by inviting those who pray. But once the person is up there, he or she has a certain right to religious expression. The line between private and public speech here isn't as clear to me as it seems to be to others. And the court's solution -- vague, nonsectarian prayers to some higher entity -- don't make much sense. Those aren't really prayers.
But I guess I don't know what the legislators are trying to prove, either. What they're doing now, while the case is still being pursued, is to have their private prayer time before the session is officially opened. That would seem to take care of God's business and the state's business. What's the problem?
