Thank you, Mr. Sodrel

As a longtime staffer at the Indiana Daily Student, I'm embarrassed to say our newspaper has not yet run a story on Rep. Mike Sodrel's new bill, H.R. 4776, unlike most other papers in this state. Finally Monday, the editorial board decided to break the news to IDS readers on this very page through the form of a staff editorial.\nUnfortunately, I can't make it to "Ed Board" meetings because I have a Friday class, so I couldn't be there to disagree. And oh boy, do I ever disagree.\nLet's talk background. In May, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the state, asking the court to prevent prayers in the Statehouse that endorse a particular religion. In November, federal judge David Hamilton ruled in favor of the ICLU, and essentially, the words "Jesus Christ" were banned from invocation at the General Assembly.\nSpeaker of the House Brian Bosma is enthusiastically appealing the decision, obviously. In the mean time, Sodrel has joined the fight against the ridiculous ruling and has proposed another remedy: limiting federal court jurisdiction. In other words, if Sodrel's bill passes, federal courts would not be able to hear any cases involving the content of speech within state legislatures. \nA drastic move? Sure, you could call it drastic. But it's also extremely warranted.\nThe original ruling seems unconstitutional on two grounds: the 10th and First Amendments. Since when does a federal court have the right to rule on what goes on within our state legislature, much less on the content of its speech? It's quite dangerous to allow the federal government so much power over our state business.\nIn its critique, the IDS editorial board inferred that Congress cannot change judicial jurisdiction based on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. Yet it's not a question of whether or not Congress can -- it clearly can. In September 2004, Congress voted to prevent federal courts from hearing cases that challenge the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. So the argument that Sodrel's bill oversteps Congress' powers is a waste of space. Civics 101: The Constitution provides each branch with checks and balances.\nDoes anyone else see a pattern? The bigger question is about removing God -- and yes, Jesus Christ -- from the public sphere. To some, this is OK. Here's a newsflash, though: it might be this way in other parts of the world, but the United States is unique and its people will not let the government be godless. This is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, most of whom believe in God. \n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Did Congress pass a law that says, in the Indiana General Assembly, the prayer must include a worship of Jesus Christ? Obviously not. What Sodrel is rightly doing is focusing on the second half of that sentence: "Or prohibit the free exercise thereof." \nIf stripping the courts is the way to go, then so be it. I voted for Sodrel in 2004 and I will vote for him again in 2006, if only for his efforts with this bill.