Obama's pick for the Seventh Circuit Court is on record stating that praying to Jesus is a no-no but praying to Allah is a yes-yes:
In 2005, in Hinrichs v. Bosma, federal district judge (and now Seventh Circuit nominee) David Hamilton enjoined the Speaker of Indiana’s House of Representatives from permitting “sectarian” prayers to be offered as part of that body’s official proceedings. In so doing, Hamilton adopted one reasonable construction—though not the only one available—of the Supreme Court’s messy Establishment Clause rulings. (In denying a stay of Hamilton’s order pending appeal, the majority on a divided Seventh Circuit panel indicated that its “initial reading of the case law” strongly inclined it to Hamilton’s reading, but the Seventh Circuit ultimately reversed Hamilton on standing grounds.)
One peculiar aspect of Hamilton’s ruling is how he drew the line between “sectarian” and “non-sectarian” prayers. On the one hand, Hamilton made clear that prayers that “use Christ’s name or title” are sectarian. On the other hand, he ruled (on a post-judgment motion) that it is presumptively not sectarian for a Muslim imam to offer a prayer to “Allah”:
The Speaker has also asked whether, for example, a Muslim imam may offer a prayer addressed to "Allah." The Arabic word "Allah" is used for "God" in Arabic translations of Jewish and Christian scriptures. If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic Allah, the Spanish Dios, the German Gott, the French Dieu, the Swedish Gud, the Greek Theos, the Hebrew Elohim, the Italian Dio, or any other language's terms in addressing the God who is the focus of the non-sectarian prayers contemplated in Marsh v. Chambers, the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. If and when the prayer practices in the Indiana House of Representatives ever seem to be advancing Islam, an appropriate party can bring the problem to the attention of this or another court.
Comments