Noted global warming denier James Inhofe, who once insisted that the United States base its foreign policy on the book of Genesis, announced on the Senate floor yesterday that he will filibuster the nomination of Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit. Judge Hamilton, a highly regarded district judge whose nomination received enthusiastic support from Hamilton's homestate Republican Senator Richard Lugar, is President Obama's first nominee to the federal bench.
Inhofe says he will filibuster Judge Hamilton because Hamilton's enforcement of the Establishment Clause offends Inhofe's fundamentalist beliefs:
Many remember David Hamilton because of his 2005 decision as a Federal district court judge presiding over the case Hinrichs v. Bosmah, in which he enjoined the Speaker of Indiana's House of Representatives from permitting ``sectarian'' prayers to be offered as part of that body's official proceedings, meaning that the chaplain or whomever opened the proceedings with prayer could not invoke the name of Jesus Christ. In his conclusion, Hamilton wrote: ``If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (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 Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal.'' Further, ruling on a postjudgment motion, Hamilton stated that invoking the name of ``Allah'' would not advance a particular religion or disparage another. So, praying to Allah would be perfectly acceptable.
In Marsh v. Chambers, the Supreme Court held that legislatures can open their session with a non-sectarian prayer, and that such a prayer could invoke "God." Marsh, however, also established that such prayers must be entirely non-sectarian, emphasizing that the prayer in that case was permissible because it was not used "to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." So non-sectarian statements of reverence to God are kosher, but prayers that offer a uniquely Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Wiccan view are forbidden. This is the Supreme Court's rule, and if Jim Inhofe has a problem with it than his beef is with the Justices, not with David Hamiltion.
Hinrichs v. Bosmah, the case that Inhofe cites in attacking Judge Hamilton, was a suit challenging the Indiana House's practice of routinely bringing in Christian clergy who would offer Christian prayers before the session began, often invoking the name "Jesus." Because a lower court judge like Judge Hamilton must follow Supreme Court precedents, Hamilton followed the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh, and held that the Indiana House must stop opening its sessions with sectarian prayers.
In a post-judgment motion, the Speaker of the Indiana House posed the question of whether or not he could begin the legislative session with a prayer that used the word "Allah," Hamilton responded as follows:
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.
Judge Hamilton is nothing like the right-wing judges Inhofe got used to supporting in the Bush years. Unlike George Bush's judges, David Hamilton does not believe that corporations should have sweeping immunity from the law, and I suspect that this is the real reason why many conservatives are lining up against him. Conservatives know that they cannot win the case against Hamilton on the merits, so they make up stories about how Judge Hamilton is a secret Muslim.
Fortunately, Senator Lugar's support of Hamilton all but ensures that Hamilton will be confirmed once Senator-elect Franken arrives to cast the 60th vote for cloture. Even so, the fact that conservatives are planning to filibuster President Obama's very first nominee---especially a nominee as distinguished and well-qualified as David Hamilton---suggests that we can expect scorched-earth opposition to virtually all of Obama's nominees moving forward.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author's own, and should not be understood as representative of any organization he may be affiliated with.
(crossposted at Overruled)
1. Should even in a predominantly Christian secular multi-nation country Christ the Saviour be prayed at the state official arrangements? – No, it is not as the Americans, the citizens of A Land of Free are themselves and represented by believers of different religions, agnostics and even atheists sometimes
2. Should foreign languages be used to conduct the state official arrangements in a country of English the State language? –No, it is not if no foreign dignitaries were summoned and appropriate diplomatic protocol was followed.
A case Hinrichs v. Bosmah is, as a modest observer could understand, about a clause1 mentioned above and a right decision can’t be underestimated even for pure political reasons.
Michael Kerjman
Article VI section 3 (US Constitution)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Even Muslims in this country have rights contrary to what the republican right thinks.
It was huge news when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, was elected President. We still haven't had a Jewish president. And now we have the worry of secret Muslims.
We haven't had a Catholic president since, so I doubt these secret Muslims are much of a threat.
This country was founded because the Puritans wanted religious freedom.
In the years between colonization and Independence, people were persecuted, hanged, and burned (you naysayers need to look up your history) for practicing witchcraft - another religion.
At Independence our forefathers really tried to make sure that: a) we have the freedom to choose whatever religion we want, and b) that there was a definite seperation of power between church and state.
Because Christianity was the religion of our founders, it has remained the dominant religion in this country and thanks to the zealous right wing Christians, it has slowly but surely been creeping into our government. References to an all powerful being are one thing. And. no matter what you call your monotheistic god, in whatever language or religion, it still references the same religious imagery. But to reference Jesus, or Mohamed, or any specific religious icon, firmly goes against what our founders intended when they wrote the constitution.
How can you claim to be a representative of the people if you let your own religion so cloud your thinking that you forget the constitution says it's OK to be a follower of Mohamed, or even a toilet if you so choose.
How do these people get elected?
Forget the religious angle. It's about upholding the constitution and Inhofe seems to be failing pretty badly on that.
!
Pick your target Republican and donate your butts off to his opponant.
As a big fan of torture, oil, social-repression and environmental degradation James inhofe deserves to sit on the smallest and most impotent back-bench of the United States Senate, from which we can hear him squeak objections to the 21st century.
This man is a US Senator, shouldn't there be an IQ test for that exalted position?
Arab Christians today use terms such as Allāh al-ʼAb ( الله الأب, "God the Father") to distinguish their usage from Muslim usage.[6]
End
Whether that matters or not I don't know(if he is a muslim).I was interested that the judge stated
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.
End
Why the need to mention that?Is he recognising that Islam allah is different to christian allah al ab?I wondered about the if and when too.
"He is probably right that the judge is a muslim" - what in this article ever gives evidence of this statement? Oh wait you live in a delusion where facts are magically given to you by higher powers.
"Why the need to mention that" - Oh probably BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO!
Now, let's say someone is a Musim, would that disqualify them from being a judge? No. Of course he appears not to be, but our primatives will hold him so just to be obstructive.
Jesus!
I understand, of course, that he is not a Muslim and that this is just another obstructionist tactic, but I sure do hope that they seat Franken before too long. We need Judge Hamilton in there doing his job!