First Amendment supporters assaulted for objecting to prayer in state senate!

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


That same argument could be said in the reverse. Don't you think there are people who would find it offensive and a denial of their rights to invoke their faith even on the grounds of a government building?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

My stance remains that this prayer in no way establishes a state sponsored church. I also contend that if Hawaii denies any other faith from participating then they should be held accountable.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I think they need to invite a representitive of the satanic church to give the invocation next week...if not, then its a clear attempt to establish a religion

Exactly. I want the athiests, the scientologists, the jews and the muslims to request their prayers next. If it is not refused then you will have no further objections from me.

ok, out of sheer humor, I would love to hear the athiest do the invocation...
soo many possibilities fill the mind,
-A reading of the holy book of chemistry.
-Knock Knock jokes
-Talk about breakfast you had earlier...or a cool movie you seen last night...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

That same argument could be said in the reverse. Don't you think there are people who would find it offensive and a denial of their rights to invoke their faith even on the grounds of a government building?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

My stance remains that this prayer in no way establishes a state sponsored church. I also contend that if Hawaii denies any other faith from participating then they should be held accountable.

Dont be daft
You can pray in city hall, but you can't be an offical wasting tax payers money doing that crap..

ANY prayer used by tax dollars is an offence to my non-religion. It is a promotion of religion in itself, which is provably false. They might as well be up there discussing the merits of cannibalism and pedophilia with the states invite for just that...
Yes...it is -that- offensive to rational thinking people...aka, athiests.

Either everyone is free to communicate with their god, in every situation, or no-one is.

No half measures.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Night Star
Good grief Charlie Brown! I am spiritual and not religous, but I would have no problem whatsoever with that prayer! What the heck is the big deal???

A prayer in any form has no place in a governmental setting.

That is the issue here.

It was not just any "all-inclusive" prayer, either. It was sectarian, specifically addressed to "Jesus Christ our Lord".
And it was said during official government business, during which the government members present were not really free to leave.

One has to wonder, haven't the Christians who support this type of prayer ever read the bible?
Jesus himself enjoined against praying like pharisees, using loud prayer in public.

I'm sure Jesus himself would have found this loud, smug hypocrisy repulsive.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

Can't you just feel the love of Jesus among those attackers of the cameraman and protester.It's like the holy spirit is just running wild there for a few minutes in that little state congress session. You will know them by their fruits.

Amen.

That was a violation of rights, plain and simple. If you defend it, you're in the wrong. This is fact, not opinion. The motto here is Deny Ignorance, not Defend Injustice.

Originally posted by Kailassa
One has to wonder, haven't the Christians who support this type of prayer ever read the bible?
Jesus himself enjoined against praying like pharisees, using loud prayer in public.

I'm sure Jesus himself would have found this loud, smug hypocrisy repulsive.

I believe you are correct my friend.

Perhaps they pray in public, not to please God, but to comfort the people before they pass laws which are going to rape them of their liberty.

With Love,

Your Brother

I don't really have an issue with outing the protester who was clearly disturbing and causing a scene. However I have a huge problem on how they handled this cameraman. That was an assault pure and simple. They should all face jail time for that.

I do not believe prayer should be in any governmental function, that being said, the protester could have handled things much differently to help his cause. Maybe to stand and refuse the bowing of the head, while getting a vid of the proceedings and posting somewhere to get his point across and gain support.

Originally posted by BigFrigginAl
I do not believe prayer should be in any governmental function, that being said, the protester could have handled things much differently to help his cause. Maybe to stand and refuse the bowing of the head, while getting a vid of the proceedings and posting somewhere to get his point across and gain support.

Really though, who would watch that Youtube video? Making a scene gets your message out to far more people. It may discredit the message (I don't think it does) but more people would not watch less action.

reply to post by PeasantRebellion


I do understand what you are saying...just my opinion that the action taken was...childish. You tube isn't the only option, try to get it in the news, papers, whatever...I'm just saying there are better, IMO, options to get your point across.

Update - the vid in the OP actually happened a few months ago.

One was arrested, the guy who stood up and is shown being roughed up. They charged him with disorderly conduct. Evidently the camera person was not charged with anything.

The trail has already happened and the judge found him not guilty.

Capitol protestor found not guilty

District Court judge Leslie Hayashi needed less than an hour to find Kahle not guilty.

A lawsuit is in the works now. Details on that and another angle of the video are available at the link below.

Government Prayer Protesters Found Not Guilty in Hawaii

Could you link directly to the other angle video. I couldn't find it. Thx.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


We have a separation of church and state for a reason...nothing wrong with that. Why should they allow prayer?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

We have a separation of church and state for a reason...nothing wrong with that. Why should they allow prayer?

They shouldnt.

No religious services of any kind belong in government.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Here is the source they use for the other - its from a Hawaii news show.

KGMB Video - Senate Protest

If this doesn't work for you try the page I liked above - the 2nd vid is about the middle of the page.

There should be no religious prayers in any official government function. Yes there is freedom of speech blah blah blah, but these are federal employees who are "on the clock" doing personal things. Now, in most businesses, doing personal things while on the clock is considered stealing from the company, but thats beside the point. The constitution clearly states that there is to be no establishment of religion in the government setting. Watching this video made me feel bad for any senators who followed another religion or no religion at all, because all they are hearing is "AMEN! AMEN AMEN" at the end of a christian denominated prayer. If I were them, I would feel that my opinions and ideas would not get full respect because others would disagree based on there religious beliefs. And it is not up to states individually to see if these sort of activities should be allowed, because the individual state constitutions CANNOT violate the supreme law of the land.

Originally posted by runner94
The constitution clearly states that there is to be no establishment of religion in the government setting.

Where? The First Amendment reads the following: (Emphasis is mine)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The portion in bold I assume is what you are stating is where the Constitution 'clearly states that there is to be no establishment of religion in the government setting'? It speaks clearly that Congress (the body of Government in which laws are drafted and made) cannot make a law either way in regards to religion. It cannot institute a State Church nor can it deny the exercise of the People to whatever faith they wish. The First Amendment in this case is quite clear in whom it is directed towards; that being Congress, not the People, individual town halls, State Senates or their business proceedings.

A violation of such would be Congress making a law, in which they are specifically prohibited from doing in the following: They make a law that declares all States must include an invocation before their openings -or- they make a law that denies a person the ability the practice their faith within those halls. Both are violations of the First Amendment.

Watching this video made me feel bad for any senators who followed another religion or no religion at all, because all they are hearing is "AMEN! AMEN AMEN" at the end of a christian denominated prayer.

This portion is speculation that those senators are bothered by the notion. How do we not know that they are equally upset that someone doesn't have enough restraint to remain silent for 30 seconds and give respect to the person who holds the floor? It is called decorum. We do not know the feelings of others yet many profess to be the champion of all others' feelings.

If I were them, I would feel that my opinions and ideas would not get full respect because others would disagree based on there religious beliefs. And it is not up to states individually to see if these sort of activities should be allowed, because the individual state constitutions CANNOT violate the supreme law of the land.

In part, I agree with how you would feel in this situation. That cannot be ignored. At the same time, it IS up to the individual states to determine such rulings because the First Amendment, specifically the [complete] Establishment Clause (that which is in bold above) is aimed at Congress.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Dont be daft
You can pray in city hall, but you can't be an offical wasting tax payers money doing that crap..

ANY prayer used by tax dollars is an offence to my non-religion. It is a promotion of religion in itself, which is provably false. They might as well be up there discussing the merits of cannibalism and pedophilia with the states invite for just that...
Yes...it is -that- offensive to rational thinking people...aka, athiests.

Quick question, can you prove or disprove that I am not a rational person? Have not the points of debate and discussion that I have presented have the markings of a rational person and not an irrational person? Rationality has nothing to do with ones Faith.

The reverse argument is not daft at all. You are in favor of oppressing the rights of a person to exercise their faith freely and without fear. The clergyman giving the invocation, from what I gather, a member of the Government. The halls of State Assemblies are open to the public and are a public forum. My one argument I am sure you will agree with is that if the state denies all other religions from using that forum. I would fight the battle.

But in your mind those that hold a faith or different belief system than yourself do not have rational thought...