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

Some NSFW language, so turn your speakers down low if youre at work



Each and every government agent who laid a hand on the camera person and the first amendment supporter belongs in prison.

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.

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???

I get the same feeling after watching these similar videos of protest...

They always seem to interupt, speak / yell completely out of turn ... conduct themselves as thugs and morons... so

Even if they did have a point, it is completely comaflauged by their typical stupidity and tact (or lack there of).

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.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Several things but first the ending. This is my objective view upon it though.

The lady to the left was calling out a name to 'stop it'. Was she referring to the activist or the senator(s)? If the activist, then it would seem the camera didn't catch something. The whole story isn't there.

Second, the idiot who smacked the camera. What a moron. It is one thing to ask people to leave who are disrupting preceding. It is another to do something as childish as that. That part I do not agree with.

So the ending, while damning to the officers and senators in the picture, I believe do not show the whole picture. It looks like both were out of line.

Now, as far as the guy who wants to be disruptive. This I do not agree with. Maybe it is my upbringing, I don't know. But shouting out and being disrespectful during an invocation/prayer that in no way was threatening only damns one cause or view points.

The problem here is that there have been split cases on this issue. Some states have deemed it a violation of Establishment Clause while others have upheld the traditional practice.

In this particular case, the people in the video were found not guilty of civil disobedience. I find that a good thing. Their only crime was being rude and disrespectful.

So on one hand we have 200 plus years of tradition, where clergy have been invited and most of the time paid to present an opening prayer or invocation. On the other hand we have others that feel this is the Government establishing a church via de facto means.

Since the bodies of these sessions are made up of the People, the Government is prohibited from invoking the Establishment Clause because then they are carving up the 1st Amendment. If the Government steps in and requests that the prayers be 'deity' neutral, then again, they have over-stepped the Free Exercise portion of the 1st Amendment.

In my opinion, at the State level, the People can decide if this practice and tradition shall continue.

On another note, I never understood why people become so upset when they are presented with an invocation or prayer. Just stand there quietly thinking about naked girls for the minute of your life. Until the Hawaii State Legislature or the Courts deem it unconstitutional, it is not.

not a laughing matter, howver it appears some of those people caught the unholy ghost! not very peaceful, even though the objectors were rude and interruptive, they manhandled them out and I am not sure, it didn't appear they were resisting, might have to take another look.

I can agree, they should not have been rude and interrupted, they should have filed a grievance afterwards or what not. Still that does not give the security a right to manhandle and tackle people like that.

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.

This simply is not true. This may be your view, but now you are asking the Government to step in and violate the other half of the 1st Amendment by prohibiting the People (that is who they are, just because they are elected to an office does not strip them of their protection under the 1st Amendment) of exercising their faith freely without fear of the Government.

This practice is tradition and harms no one. It does not establish a church nor does it force anyone or deny anyone their rights.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


If one were to allow a christian prayer in a governmental setting, why not invite the westboro baptist church?

Simply because one agrees with the form of prayer is no reason to support it.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


I wonder how that assembly would feel about a muslim cleric doing their song to let people know to pray..

Probably wouldn't appreciate that.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


Because then decorum would be breached. Most of the time, especially at the state and local levels, the persons invited to perform such a prayer are usually community leaders within the religious spheres.

Essentially this is asking why not invite the KKK leader or Black Panther leader to open a session of Congress. It isn't done because it would diminish the creditability of that House (or what is left of it).

I hold that Government itself is supposed to be secular. The People who form that body retain their rights to either exercise their faith or not.

Now, if the man giving the prayer asked everyone to accept Jesus Christ and repent, then I would be wholly against it and all in favor of the protesters.

reply to post by Miraj


You would be surprised. I received many of prayers while serving from a Jewish and Muslim chaplain. It bothered me none. Granted that is just one person.

Most of the time it is a clergy of Christian faith because that is the overall representation of the community. That being though, if a Muslim cleric asks to perform the invocation and the State denies him, then again, I would be right there with the protesters.

Goto the youtube channel
thumbs up and favorite it.
These religious facists need to be jailed immediately and the government that is violating the constitution to try and install this theocratic regime need to also be punished.

Nice find..lets get this going viral

Brian: “Oh how very Christian of you. Believe what I say or I’ll hit you.”
Peter’s Father: “Now you’re getting it…”

Religion and prayer are personal choices unenforceable by state law. You have the option to pray or not to pray. Anyone whom believes they can enforce their will upon you have quite obviously never read the Constitution or believe in freedom of speech.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Ever happen to think some people find any form of prayer just as offensive as most would find the westboro baptist church's?

Prayer and religion for that matter is best kept private. It certainly has no place in a governmental meeting.

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

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


First of all I think that attack on the cameraman was uncalled for, regardless of what his intentions were. He did not provoke an attack as evident and it was uncalled for.

The above being said, why are they praying in the Hawaiian state senate? Don't people have church to go to for that? I attend church often, thats where I go to get myself intouch with my spirituality, I do not need to get it from my state legislator or senate. If there was an islamic or jewish prayer in the senate I would feel that it was inappropriate, just as that of a christian one. Individual politicians have the right to believe what they want and pray to themselves, but it is wrong in my books to lump the entire state senate, any senate or state house, into a religious prayer or following. That is not what our government(s) are intended for, that is why we have church's and mosques and what have you.

To me the only excuse for having any religious process in government matters is to establish some kind of cultural dominance, nothing more.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I remember when they taught religion in school, I remember the look on the faces of people who had to leave the classroom.

But this obviously goes well beyond that, this is where we make decisions about our society, are you really ready to invite the church into the decision making process? We vote on things based on our moral values and personal beliefs, this obviously has a huge influence and impact on all of that. Everything that is decided in politics should be done so as to help society and not help those in power prosper, and this includes in their own faiths. What we need is objectivity, otherwise what you're left with is nothing less than another misguided religious state.

Do what's best for society based on personal ideas not the ideas dictated to you in a mythical book.

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.

reply to post by Cocasinpry


The church in this case is not invited to make decisions in the session but to open it with tradition. You can't have it both ways in regards to the 1st Amendment. A prayer does not establish a church. Government also cannot stifle the exercise of the people within that chamber from the free practice thereof.

Like I said, if the People of Hawaii wish their House to be completely secular and remove the tradition, do so by law. Which, would lead to a denial of that free exercise of faith.

A lot of people clamor on about 'the government works for us', well, the government is us. If the government is us, then the people who make up the government are afforded the same protections under the 1st Amendment.