Government Prayer Protesters Found Not Guilty in Hawaii

Seems like a clear situation in which speaking out like that is perfectly reasonable.

First they ignore us, check.
Then they ridicule us, check.
Then they fight us, check.
Then we win.

I don’t even want to talk about what was right or wrong… just FUCK religious nut-jobs. FUCK them. There is no room for theocratic tyrants in this land. None. I want to know where to support their lawsuit. I want to see prison sentences for this, loss of public office for this, and legal retribution. I AM OUTRAGED. There is no room in the advancement of humanity for theocratic thuggish morons. The state of Hawaii should be, must be, ashamed of this behavior. The governor of that state owes an apology to the rest of the Union for such behavior. To tolerate such behavior is to say that Hawaii needs no more tourist dollars.

Glenn,
If he spoke up before the prayer then it would have been too soon, perhaps the minister was to deliver a completely non-secular prayer (yea right). In which case speaking up would have made him look like an ass.

He had to wait until the minister clearly violated the state and federal constitution at which point it is his right, and his duty to stand up and object to the law being broken, just as a good lawyer will stand up and object when opposing council is making a statement rather than asking a question, or is out of line.

He did just as he needed to do.

Now that he has been found ot guilty, and the evidence is there he need to pursue criminal charges against the thugs that went after him. As does the camera man.
And most importantly they need to not settle, to settle will be a victory for the idiots. They need to make sure this goes to a jury trial where the clear evidence of assault and oppression of free speech is seen by the masses.

Barring that I just say we cut the damned state off and let them go back to grass skirts and human sacrifices. I figure the ICE epidemic there should wipe out the islands in about 10 years.

I guess the Hawaiian Senate is just following the example the Feds put in front of us:

“Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. ”

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm

Which is the biggest buncha bullshit I’ve ever heard. Waiting for prayers to the FSM, Allah, Loki, and Ganesh, since they don’t want to separate the gods from state…

Mr Z, I admire your energy. I have to suggest though that you eventually switch to using your real name. I don’t know your attitude on that, but one thing I do know is that it’s relatively safe online anyway, to use your real name when criticizing religion. This is really for all activists who still don’t use their real name, not just you. :o)

I’m also convinced that when we criticize religion strongly, and we don’t do anything at all to conceal our identity, we’re presenting a stronger argument for that reason. I think a lot of Christians want us to use pseudonyms, to keep us in check with the fear-threat.

I’ve used my real name for years now, and I’ve said some of the harshest things against religion I have ever heard anyone say. So far, I’ve been safe, here in Texas, no less.

Geeze, think of Mitch Kahle using his real name with all this in the air over there! Bravery brings strength! :o)

@Hoverfrog:

Likely, we will hear another round of ‘it’s just ceremonial deism.’

But that’s nothing atheists haven’t heard before. What will probably also happen is that ‘unauthorized recording of legislative sessions’ will become a crime.

@Bob:

That would be very disappointing but I suppose to be expected. Christians have a reputation for protecting their privilege while screaming about how they are persecuted. I suppose I should just stop hoping for better.

Likely, we will hear another round of ‘it’s just ceremonial deism.’

I’m not a legal anything, but it strikes me that the phrase “ceremonial deism” is one of the stupidest to enter our lexicon, it exists more or less only to protect things that christians like (god in the pledge and on the money) from the establishment clause. I think Martha Nussbaum of UChicago Law sums up my feelings on it very well.

“Ceremonial Deism” is an odd name for a ritual affirmation that a Deist would be very reluctant to endorse, since Deists think of God as a rational causal principle but not as a personal judge and father.

And here we were, worrying about how our tone might make them feel…

First, I’m guessing the unwritten corrallary of “turn the other cheeck” is “kick the ass of those you disagree with on church-state separation issues.”

Actually, I’m pretty sure that Jesus never said that one should kick the ass of those one disagrees with.

Second, the folks doing the public prayer should in Jesus’ name should read what he said in the Gospel of Matthew:

5 When you pray, don’t be like those show-offs who love to stand up and pray in the meeting places and on the street corners. They do this just to look good. I can assure you that they already have their reward.

6 When you pray, go into a room alone and close the door. Pray to your Father in private. He knows what is done in private, and he will reward you.

7 When you pray, don’t talk on and on as people do who don’t know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers.

Source — Matthew 6:5-7 (Contemporary English Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:5-7&version=CEV

Maybe folks should write the state and ask if they really want tourism business and if kicking ass when one disagrees with another’s religious views is good for getting tourists to visit their state?

It’s very religious out here in Hawaii. Atop the local religion came a thick overlay of missionary zeal. The mormons and jehovah’s witnesses are particularly successful.

I volunteer with the Red Cross out here, and we have to hold our meetings in a church. Once I showed up for my CPR certification wearing an atheist pin and my blood donation pins. The instructor asked why I donated blood if I was an atheist. The mindset is shocking.

I’m very glad to see my fellow atheists literally standing up to it and proud that they are willing to pay the price.

Wow, just wow. This really reminds me of one of my favourite scenes from one of my favourite movies, The Majestic. You know, where the protagonist stands up the the ‘McCarthy-esque character’ and instead of quoting the prepared speech, quotes the 1st amendment. I thought the grandstanding presented in the movie was over the top Hollywood style embellishment, never thought I would see a more appropriate, and more obnoxiously treated example in real life.

Just goes to show some things are really too bizarre not to be real.

Just for completeness:

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.

Can someone who knows more about the law than me explain how it is unconstitutional to hold prayer in senate? I understand that creating laws about religion is totally unconstitutional, and as a secularist, I would hope prayer in the senate would not be condoned, but constitutionally it is technically okay, right? Seriously, I want someone to prove me wrong so I can use the argument later 😛

Jeanette – the First Amendment prohibits the governmental establishment of religion – which means that it may not endorse any religion. The main issue with this prayer is that it is “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Which preferences Christianity, obviously. It’s an implicit endorsement, in violation of the establishment clause.

The Illinois General Assembly hosts clergy to give invocations all the time, which is probably bad…http://ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans96/09600140.pdf But to my knowledge there’s no issue if it’s a generic prayer. This is constitutional in the way “In God We Trust” is: as a ceremonial invocation that doesn’t really mean anything anymore. Or so the Supreme Court says.

Hmmm…

CSPAN – “Christian extremists disrupt Hindu Senate invocation”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A

Just so we can make clear what “establish” means – even just in normal usage, let us look at the definition:

establish (verb)
1. to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis: to establish a university; to establish a Medical practice.
2. to install or settle in a position, place, business, etc.: to establish one’s child in business.
3. to show to be valid or true; prove: to establish the facts of the matter.
4. to cause to be accepted or recognized: to establish a custom; She established herself as a leading surgeon.
5. to bring about permanently: to establish order.
6. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, as a law; fix unalterably.
7. to make (a church) a national or state institution.
establishment (noun)
1. the act or an instance of establishing.
2. the state or fact of being established.
3. something established; a constituted order or system.
4. (often initial capital letter) the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority (usually preceded by the): The Establishment believes exploring outer space is worth any tax money spent.
5. ( often initial capital letter ) the dominant group in a field of endeavor, organization, etc. (usually preceded by the ): the literary Establishment.
6. a household; place of residence including its furnishings, grounds, etc.
7. a place of business together with its employees, merchandise, equipment, etc.
8. a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization.
9. an institution, as a school, hospital, etc.
10. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church.
11. the church so recognized, especially the Church of England.
It should become clear from the majority of usages that “establish” and “establishment” means what case law says it means — to set up a church, to give preference to a religion or to religions generally as opposed to non-religion, to officially recognize religion by the state, “to cause to be accepted or recognized; to establish a custom” “the recognition by a state of a church”
There you have it.

Weird… works for me!