Activist gets arrested for interrupting prayer.
 

On April 29, 2010, activists Mitch Kahle and Kevin Hughes were assaulted (arrested) by Ben Villaflor, the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, and State Sheriff's Deputies, for objecting to unconstitutional Christian prayers used to begin each session of the Hawaii State Legislature.

http://www.casttv.com/video/dx60al5/...-29-2010-video

The "activists" (punks) have been acquitted of disorderly conduct. This is stupid. It was disorderly conduct. I think if I had gone into the senate chamber screaming "I object. Taxes are unconstitutional!", Judge Leslie Hayashi would have convicted me of disorderly conduct.

It seems that if you protest religion, you get special treatment by Hawaii judges.

If you read the constitution carefully, it may be unconstitutional to have a prayer at the Hawaii senate. Our tax code is unconstitutional too. I'd be willing to see this half way. The Hawaii senate should quit praying, and it's liberals should quit trying to "reorganize wealth". That's unconstitutional too.

Meh, liberals only give lip service to The Constitution when it serves their Marxist agendas. Not surprising really. It should be no surprise to you either RoH. Actually, nothing these liberals do surprises me anymore.

Separation of church and state, a very simple concept for most.

Don't want to pay taxes, don't drive on our roads, don't use electricity, don't expect fire and police protection, food and drug regulation. Good luck finding any organized society that doesn't require participation via a tax levy. Don't like it go find an island to live on and take care of yourself 100%. It's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's an issue of living in concert with other humans in a civilize society. you teabaggers are basically insane. Good thing there aren't very many of you.

I think you made thinktinks point really well.

The way taxes are levied currently is largely unconstitutional in several ways. If I protest that, I end up in the slammer. If I protest God, I get a free ride from a liberal judge.

Why? Because it might offend some liberal freaks? I think people should be able to practice religion openly. Most of us believe in God. This is what happens in a Democracy. The government reflects the people that live in it. When it doesn't, then you have Lenin.

The US states has never come close to being a theocracy. If it were, it would be Roman Catholic by sheer numbers. I really doubt most religious people would want to be ruled by a theocracy, even if it was by their own clergy.

The White House is not a cathedral. The Pope doesn't run the United States. There is no danger religion is, has or ever will take over. This "separation" crap is just some side show antics by poor, miserable, stupid bastards like this idiot who got arrested.

I found his crying like a little girl while the cops kicked his ass highly entertaining. Aww! Mommy cop took his camera away and he got a boo boo. Poor baby!

Hell, I don't even know if I'm a Christian any more, but I'd like the right to be.

You can sue the government for unconstitutional taxation without landing in jail. Just pay the taxes, and if you win, you get the money back.


One of the fundamental tenets of democracy is that the minority is protected from the majority. That is why you have a constitution and a supreme court.

Wrong. That fundamental tenant is that of a Constitutional Republic not an archaic Democracy:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...ts/demrep.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion...Democracy.html

That's too nit-picky even for my tastes. What I inferred was, of course, a central tenet of a democratic society. Not of the form of government. And if memory serves me, the US is officially a republic, which would make your point even more useless.

No, it's not picky. It's the basis of the founding of the country. The framers of The Constitution were, among other things, concerned about the emotional sway of the day of the "voting public" to vote away the original intent of the entire document. That intent, among others, being to create a sovereign country free from the burdens of The Government, the specific fear they had that The Government would take away from The People their right to Life, Liberty, and Property regardless if they were the majority or not. This country is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a Democratic Republic. And that wall of separation of church and state is only meant to be a one way wall. People holding office can influence the moral and social direction of the country but an established church cannot nor can people holding office establish an official church funded or sanctioned by The Government, nor (I completely agree) should it. People holding public office can (and, I believe, should with my vote) pray to a higher moral authority but that prayer or plea for moral direction to some higher power does not, in and of itself, create an establishment of a specifically official (theocratic) government church nor does it fund one. Those little itty bitty differences you want to brush aside make a very large difference.

You are nitpicking because even though the US is a republic, we call it a democracy in everyday language.

And sure, there is a distinction between the forms of government. But it is not relevant to this discussion because this topic is about a) civil disobedience/protest and b) constitutional separation between church and state. Even supposing the US had a pure democratic form of government, it would not change the discussion on those topics.

You mean like the majority that wants to spend other peoples money?

Anyone offended by people praying? Raise your hand. You are way outnumbered. Go home. Really. Get out the clown car for this issue.

I agree that the United States should not be a theocracy. Neither should it be humanist. The reason? We are not mostly humanists.

This issue is only important because of old guy (my age) college professors that want to talk Birkenstock wearing co-eds with funny glasses out of their panties.

If you are offended by hearing people praying, you've got the problem. Frankly, I like it. At least for a few minutes they aren't getting in trouble.

I'm absolutely sure while this whiney little jerkoff was acting like a baby, that someone was performing an act of Christian kindness.

Well no shit. What idiot is offended if you wish them a Merry Christmas? If you see a nativity scene, does it make you melt like the wicked witch of the west? Do your Vonnegut novels burst into flames? Does your Mussolini poster frown :( ?

fuck it, i hit the back button mistakenly while editing in an extra quote.

case in point:

campaign contributions to politicians running for office from religious groups are unconstitutional and a rebranding of bribery.

also.

no i don't get offended by people praying, however.
yes i do get offended and insulted when they expect me to join.

and for what it's worth, extremist christians like you RoH are the reason the rest of us view you all as insane extremists.

yeah, i'll give you that, i'm not offended when someone prays, i'm offended when someone assumes i'm ignorant to join.

What about all the campaign contributions by humanist, atheist, socialists?

Any excuse to bust some windows? If you are an insane extremist, it's because you're an asshole. Get a life.

I agree with you that all campaign contributions are bribes.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has decided that bribing politicians is free speech.

We'd agree that money shouldn't talk as much as it does. It doesn't follow that the causes of the left are underfunded by any means.

whether anyone, including the or any supreme court agrees is totally irrelevant, they are bribes.

@ RoH as for campaign contributions from non-religious groups, well those aren't in a position to want to see an end to separation of church and state which deems that point irrelevant in this discussion.

They don't want to see an end of church and state, because there is no "church and state". They want to see an end of church. You just can't run a proper commie, orderly, tolerant concentration camp with people that believe in God around.

That's hardly irrelevant, because so long as the Supreme Court holds that view, it will continue to happen. (And it is in fact increasing.)

I think there is little point in that sort of discussion. You are preaching to the choir for the most part. Then there's ROH who has already made up his mind ("a certain amount of state-sponsored religion is fine", "people who disagree with me are communists/liberals/socialists/atheists and therefore should be ignored", "charities who sue the government are trying to get rich", pick as needed) and that will never change.

i didn't mean you, i meant the sane people, the non religious ones since you apparently missed that first off.
and it's not "church and state" it's separation of church and state to prevent you dipshit "god" assclowns from ruining the nation for the rest of us. fuck, are you blind or just stupid?

and no, not an end to church i can't say i want that, i want people to stop believing things for no other reason than so many others do.

sheesh, you know, it's not that you're such a fucking whacko extremist that pisses people off at you, it's that we explain the same things to you hundreds of times and then you immediately give us your trademark herpderp retard stare and ask the same god damn question again like it was never answered in the first place.

In my opinion there is no constitutional conflict. The mere presence of religious imagery doesn't make the United States a theocracy. Some people praying doesn't constitute a religion running government.

Some liberals say that this might offend some people of other religions. Usually, the town crier is the liberal who has a pretty hard time finding imaginary victims.

If religion influences our leaders.... is that any different from being influenced by anything else?

The whole point of the constitution on this point is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... Doesn't it interfere with free exercise of religion to tell government employees they must not show their religious belief?

We could discuss whether liberalism has become a religion itself. The first commandment: Thou shall have no god.

Merry Christmas.

Clearly, constitutional law is not your strong point.

This is a profoundly x-tian nation and that's fine. This not being the 13th century, as an atheist i really don't have to worry about being staked or racked or burned until I confess my love of an invisible magical being. What the next fella believes is of little importance to me.

However, I think it's important for that those that DO believe, be it in the baby Jebus or Allah, or a Hindu blue elephant god or In Gaia and granola, or in not pushing an elevator button their holy day, have free reign to practice their belief without have any other religion being deemed the official one. Therefore public displays of a solely x-tian pov are offensive to the public trust and to the foundation of our society. By public, I mean in a state building or property. Wanna put a manger scene on your front lawn or use blue lights instead of red or green on your house, more power to ya.

Personally, I don't think that the public property test is all that relevant. The question is whether the government is establishing a state religion. By leading a courtroom in prayer, a judge is doing exactly that (on a small scale). I do not think it is constitutional, however, to forbid people who are not government workers from praying inside the courtroom (simply because it is public property), so long as it doesn't disturb courtroom operations.

It doesn't? I think those in protest would tell you it doesn't. They'd be lying. It's not very thinly veiled that those in protest don't agree with the values of people of faith. So much so, that they can't even tolerate a nativity scene on public property.

Let's face it. People simply wouldn't object to prayer or Christmas decorations unless they objected to the underlying ideas. It's probably just because they want to get laid.

Agreed. This is not a theocracy. Notwithstanding some people who believe in God praying at a Senate meeting, it's not likely to become one either. Actually, I think people of faith are most likely to resist a state religion. Those in protest of religion are the ones we have to look at for trying to have unfair influence.

It's not hard to figure out the real objection here. It might be ok to suppress religion if it were in a vacuum. However, liberals stand ready to fill the void with humanist ideas. I think this has become a religion in itself.

That's an old canard and not worth discussing. Absence of faith in a religion is NOT a religion.

I think Baafie is on the right track. If one wishes to pray in public, be it a moment of bowed head, a few mumbled words of hope and faith or wearing a magic shawl, that is okay. A judge leading a prayer in a courtroom or the The speaker of the house leading the group in a public prayer to start off a legislative session is wrong in that it gives the official stamp of approval to whichever religious language they are praying in.

However, liberals stand ready to fill the void with humanist ideas.<<<<


What's wrong with ideas? If you don't agree, fine, but I'm proud to be tarnished by the name liberal if it means (to you) a group of people who believe in exploring new and interesting ideas. I'd be embarrassed to be called a conservative who wants to stop all thinking and progress and go back to a mythical "good old days" that never existed in the first place.

Loosely, a religion is a congregation of people who meet to celebrate shared values. Atheists do that too. They can even be evangelists.

The purpose here is not to remove religion from public life. It's to replace it with leftist dogma.

i hate to be contradictory, but that is wrong. A religion is far more than a group of people sitting around discussing shared ideas. think about dogma and rules and edicts from on high and a shared belif system based on myths..

Atheists rarely sit around together disusing their lack of belief. you are sadly mistaken. I don't care if Beck or Hannity or Rush tell you this kind of drivel, it's misinformed.

And finally, there is no purpose to atheism relating to replacing religion from anyone's life with leftist dogma. Hah! That is so far from reality that it's hard to believe anyone could believe such a thing. I only don't want any one religion rammed down my throat. Keep it in your churches, in your house, in your car when you're praying for the traffic jam to disappear or when you're praying for the clock to strike 5 so you can get away from work and go drink in a bar. That is all. Please stop projecting thoughts and motives on other people who have different ideas than yours. It doesn't make you look smart to regurgitate talk radio talking points.