[Nemesis6]

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – The head of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church has been acquitted of a disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest while objecting a prayer being said at the beginning of a state Senate session in April.

When Senate President Colleen Hanabusa introduced a reverend to say the invocation, Mitch Kahle stood from his seat in the gallery of the Senate chambers and said, "I object. My name is Mitch Kahle and I object to this prayer on the grounds that it's a violation of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. I object."

Kahle's protest lasted about seven seconds. Then he stopped talking and sat down. The Senate's Sergeant at Arms was determined to remove Kahle. When Kahle resisted he was forcefully removed and roughed up. The incident was caught by several video cameras including a camera belonging to Hawaii News Now.

"Then what they did to add insult to injury was, they arrested him for disorderly conduct," said William Harrison, Kahle's attorney.

"Their disorderly conduct (charge) was allegedly based upon his standing up and in the senate chambers and voicing his opinion, which he as a U.S. Citizen and a Hawaii citizen has a right to do," Harrison said.

Read the rest here --
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13569794

Better yet, discard the blahblah above and see what happened for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7ekCD6uE4

I guess the good old first amendment can't hold a stick to something that's literally written in stone. If the result of sticking up for it is assault, battery, intimidation, and then being sued for "disorderly conduct", what's the point? America's pretty damn confusing sometimes! 

[watsisname]

I skipped the supplementary reading and watched the video.

Words cannot express the intensity of my rage over what I just saw.  I hope redemption comes swiftly.

[Hades]

Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!

Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.

[IronBeer]

Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.

I'd join you. And I know a bunch of people who would as well. 

[Klaustrophobia]

let the religion bashing begin. 

[Hades]

Chill, no one's religion bashing.

[Turambar]

I could start, if it would help you be more comfortable with having a persecution complex while being a member of the majority.

[karajorma]

let the religion bashing begin. 

Let a Muslim or Jew lead the prayer and you might have the slightest bit of a point.

Simple fact is that it is against the constitution for this to happen. But it is only Christians who are doing it.

[Black Wolf]

Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!

Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.

Didn't someone try that, like, 400 years ago? Called it... Amerka or Umericil or something. Didn't work.

[Polpolion]

Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!

Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.

Yeah! It's almost like the council chair didn't step down afterwards!

EDIT: Doing a little research,  precedent cases really don't have much to do with publicly endorsed prayer as much as spending money, so it could be argued either that this wasn't a violation on the portions of the first amendment, or that the context in this case doesn't really match that which was selectively incorporated. Either way, it's vague enough for stuff like this to happen and it's low level enough for it to be utterly ridiculous for federal agents to storm in and shut the place down. The problem, contrary to what I said above, is that the people that might be willing to stop it after something like this happens are more willing to leave after appropriate behavior takes place, which would be the two people speaking out.

Regardless, I'd be more concerned with the prayers the US Senate starts its sessions off with, it's just that they don't regularly let anyone wander in any time to those anymore.

[MP-Ryan]

Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

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 saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter).  The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion.  This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.

[Nuke]

Chill, no one's religion bashing.

speak for yourself

*bashes a religion with a stick*

[Hades]

-snip-

Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.

[Polpolion]

Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

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 saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution.  The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion.  This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.

To be honest, I think it can be argued either way plenty well in this case. Regularly having a prayer before a council session could easily be taken as implicitly respecting an establishment of a religious status quo, which doesn't work well with the establishment clause.  On the other hand, there is no explicit law be made and no explicit schedule that demands the prayer (as far as I know, at least). And then there's the ambiguity in with the establishment clause's incorporation into state level affairs, which could easily be interpreted as, by law, only the monetary endorsement or such explicit advocacy being against the law. In any case, I'm sure that if the law were as clear as you see it, there would be no arguing about it.

Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.

Where do you think separation of church and state comes from?

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.

Which is only codified in law in the First Amendment (OK, and partially in Article VI), and otherwise established by case law which references Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter, as published in letters.  But the sum total of all of that does not preclude the presence of a religious prayer in a house of government.

To be honest, I think it can be argued either way plenty well in this case. Regularly having a prayer before a council session could easily be taken as implicitly respecting an establishment of a religious status quo, which doesn't work well with the establishment clause.  On the other hand, there is no explicit law be made and no explicit schedule that demands the prayer (as far as I know, at least). And then there's the ambiguity in with the establishment clause's incorporation into state level affairs, which could easily be interpreted as, by law, only the monetary endorsement or such explicit advocacy being against the law. In any case, I'm sure that if the law were as clear as you see it, there would be no arguing about it.

The trouble is that most people don't look at the word of law, including case law.  The judge in question has established that her opinion is that the practice is barred under the Constitution, but that is one lower-court judge's non-binding opinion.  The Supreme Court tends to see the matter through a historical, and much less rigid, lens.  In other words, they read what the law says and provide a legal interpretation of it.  The Reynolds and Everson cases establish a wall of separation between church and state (common phrase) as intent, but do not go so far as to prohibit non-mandatory religious activities from occurring in the context of state or federal affairs.

[Bobboau]

Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

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 saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter).  The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion.  This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.

but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.

[Nuke]

this all reminds me of the time back in highschool where we were in the computer lav browsing the church of satan website, and someone informed the principal. 3 minutes later he was there and he seemed so annoyed that we were looking at religions websites that he completely missed the nearly pornographic images that the website had depicting then tenants and rituals involved in the church of satan. so we were sitting there with pictures of bare breasted goth women on the screen, and the principal hovering over us asking us to shut the computer down and go with him to the office. we all thought we would end up getting suspended, or several weeks of dentition and banishment form the computer lab. instead he gave us sodas and explained the separation of church and state, 2 minutes later we were back in the lab playing doom.

[Nuke]

Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:

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 saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter).  The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion.  This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.

but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.

the way i understand it, the amendment actually protects the members of congress' right to free speech, and by extent religious expression. what they cant do is make a law that says jews need to pay twice the taxes, or that all citizens must register affiliation with a specific church. all members of congress are free to discuss matters pertaining to religion, so long as they dont write religious doctrine into law.

[Bobboau]

such as mandating a prayer as part of an official procedure.

[MP-Ryan]

but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.

...no.

I read legislation for a living, so maybe I have a better grasp on how the wording actually functions, but I'll try to break it down.  Here's the relevant part of the First Amendment, for reference:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Congress - Refers to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
shall make no law - Shall / must are often legally interchanged.  This clause prohibits Congress from enacting a law that does something.
respecting - The something.  Respecting can be interpreted as concerning, enacting, codifying, or otherwise to do with.
an establishment of religion - Does not necessarily mean making a religion (although it can include it), but rather is referring to religion as an establishment, or a thing itself.  So, Congress cannot establish laws concerning the creation of an official religion, nor which are derived from a particular form of religious practice.  It does not prevent the exercise of religion by persons, but actually protects it:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - Means what it says.  Congress cannot prevent a person from freely exercising their religion, whatever it may be.

Law generally works through prohibitions rather than positive requirements.  To say a prayer in a state or federal establishment, one does not require a law that says you can.  Rather, to be prevented from doing it you require a law that says you cannot.

Nuke pretty much got it correct is his response.  And, as I understand the prayer under discussion is not a legal part of official procedure but is a matter of policy or tradition (which I'm guessing is non-binding upon its members) it wouldn't be prohibited under the Constitution.

The only way the First Amendment enters into this case in the context of the State is if they had a formal, binding law that requires all members to participate in a religious prayer within the context of their official duties.

EDIT:  The legal separation between religion and state is actually very poorly codified in the United States.  Other countries (my own included) have left a much broader definition (2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;) which allow the courts significantly more leeway in their interpretations and actually increases the strength of that law.  The First Amendment actually handicaps itself by being too specific.