[Galemp]

Hm. I would say that the prayer would have an undesirable 'chilling effect' upon those who do not pray, thus influencing their vote and restricting both their freedom of speech and their freedom to practice religion.

Suppose the Senate prayer urges "all present to act with the guidance of Jesus Christ Our Lord", and the subsequent vote is about teaching Creationism in public schools? Do you really believe that won't have an effect on senators standing up and speaking out in favor of secularism?

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.

[Nemesis6]

Another way of looking at this: Imagine if the speaker got up to the podium and cited the Adhan of the Islamic faith.  I would actually like to see that happen. The first time or so, the audience MIGHT find it interesting/culturally enriching, but most likely, societal bias and bigotry would prevail and he'd be removed, heckled, or otherwise interrupted immediately. Heck, I'll take it one step further -- the Adhan would actually be more appropriate(even though it's still inappropriate as a prayer), because when Christian culture is reinforced in government/legal situations like this, it serves to further marginalize actual minorities, be they Jews, Muslims or Hindus. The ironic thing here is - The lady preceding the reverend was Jewish. Oh, sweet, sweet irony.

Also, the guy was a baptist priest. With what I believe is over 36.000 sects of Christianity in America, many of which are mutually exclusive, with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell, isn't it inappropriate? One last thing: Likewise, having a Muslim prayer would be offensive because Islam is also splintered into several groups. So if you do the Sunni-specific prayer, you offend the Shias and the Ahmadiyyas.

By the way, activists who were assaulted are now launching a counter-suit, alleging, among about 50 charges, assault and battery: http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/Complaint_filed_11-30-10.pdf

Apparently, the policemen were not very nice. Who would have thought.

[MP-Ryan]

Hm. I would say that the prayer would have an undesirable 'chilling effect' upon those who do not pray, thus influencing their vote and restricting both their freedom of speech and their freedom to practice religion.

Suppose the Senate prayer urges "all present to act with the guidance of Jesus Christ Our Lord", and the subsequent vote is about teaching Creationism in public schools? Do you really believe that won't have an effect on senators standing up and speaking out in favor of secularism?

Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.

I agree with your point, but the law, as it stands, does not prohibit the prayer is what I'm saying.  People can argue effects until they're blue in the face, but unless there is a procedural or legal prohibition, all the well-reasoned arguments in the world are completely and utterly irrelevant.

Apparently, the policemen were not very nice. Who would have thought.

The rest of your post has no bearing on the legal argument at hand, but your irrational blanket hatred toward law enforcement is really starting to get on my nerves.  Yes, these individuals were unprofessional in their conduct and outside of their grounds for reasonable arrests, but their poor choices are not a reflection of law enforcement as a whole.  You do this every time an allegation arises (and a criminal complaint is nothing more than an allegation until proven in court), and it's getting old fast.

[Bobboau]

an individual can pray, a group of individuals can pray together, they can do it within a government building, but as a mater of procedure no government entity can do anything with a religious motive behind it. no one can do anything with respect to a religion. if they are conducting government business they cannot cram a prayer into it.

[MP-Ryan]

but as a mater of procedure no government entity can do anything with a religious motive behind it. no one can do anything with respect to a religion. if they are conducting government business they cannot cram a prayer into it.

That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion.  That's not what the law says.

[achtung]

Maybe some day we will have a secular government that doesn't give tax breaks to religious institutions.

Hahaha, oh ****.

[Polpolion]

I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for.  But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.

EDIT: it all seems like we know about the establishment clause pretty well, but we're forgetting about the Free Exercise clause, the six words after the establishment clause.

[Nemesis6]

I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for.  But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.

I remember this case(if it's the same one, might have happened more than once). If I remember correctly, after being ordered not to lead those prayers, they basically defied the order by doing the old "if you WANT to pray with us, you can do that.". Think about it -- He's not leading them in prayer, but IF they just happened to want to pray with him, they could do that.

[Scotty]

I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for.  But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.

I remember this case(if it's the same one, might have happened more than once). If I remember correctly, after being ordered not to lead those prayers, they basically defied the order by doing the old "if you WANT to pray with us, you can do that.". Think about it -- He's not leading them in prayer, but IF they just happened to want to pray with him, they could do that.

False.  The school district was sued for actively endorsing student led prayers before football games.  In Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe in 2000, the Supreme Court determined that the school endorsing the practice was in conflict with the 1st Amendment.  That fact that it was student led and organized does not change the conflict.  (Interesting side note, there's something like this going on in Tennessee right now, but no one cares enough to report it as big news).

The Hawaiian Senate being led in prayer by one of its own members in an unofficial, traditional fashion is in no way contrary to that ruling, which I assume is the case you were talking about.

tl;dr, it's not about the people praying, it's about the capacity in which they do so (sponsored or not).

[Bobboau]

That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion.  That's not what the law says.

I must disagree with your assessment of the law.

[General Battuta]

That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion.  That's not what the law says.

I must disagree with your assessment of the law.

Given that interpreting the law is apparently part of his job...

[MP-Ryan]

That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion.  That's not what the law says.

I must disagree with your assessment of the law.

Given that interpreting the law is apparently part of his job...

He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes.  Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too.  Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.

Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck:  sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.

[Sushi]

And once again, we see the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause... yet another situation where they're both tugging in different directions.

[Mongoose]

with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell

wrong

And once again, we see the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause... yet another situation where they're both tugging in different directions.

Not really.  As Ryan so eloquently put it, the Establishment Clause basically states, "Okay, the state can't impose religious beliefs on other people," and the Free Exercise Clause says, "Okay, you can worship whomever and however you want."  There's not really any inherent tension between the two statements, though certain interpretations may generate such.

[Liberator]

*plink plink*

Here's my 2 cents based on what I saw in the video.

I saw the Chairman or whatever of the Senate call the Senate to order.  She then introduced a Baptist minister or pastor(we don't have priests) as the one who was going to say the Invocation, which is a ritual prayer given by a private citizen in almost every body of leadership across the US, from court proceedings to congressional bodies.  After the pastor stood to the podium and began his prayer the person in question was very rude and tried to interrupt and drown him out.  The master at arms then did his job and removed the unruly party from the proceeding.

That's the objective actuality of what happened.

Here's what I saw subjectively.

I saw a pastor, a recognized man of the cloth, called before the Senate of the State of Hawaii to say a prayer to his god on behalf of the Senators and staff present at the proceeding that he grant the Senators and staff wisdom in the decisions they would make that day.  He wasn't a representative of the government in any way shape or form, his appearance was as a friend of the Senate. 

I also saw a young man who went overboard on his protest and was escorted out in the only way possible since he was obviously resisting.  The disorderly conduct charge likely stemmed from his actions inside the Senate chamber, not what happened afterward.  He did what he did to call attention to himself and his incorrect perception based on an incomplete understanding that the senate was promoting the Baptist faith as a state sponsored religion somehow.  I'll say it again, the kid was a dumbass about how he went about having his say.  There's a time and a place for everything.  Standing up and yelling and trying to drown out another who was speaking prior to you in a public gather is rude and against the law in places like government assemblies.

Lastly, I will say that the Master at Arms and security staff were entirely wrong in how they handled the situation.  They should also be held accountable for their actions and have disciplinary action levied against them.

[Bobboau]

He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes.  Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too.  Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.

Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck:  sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.

or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.

[Scotty]

the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure

What you say, this is already true.  It's not "official," it's tradition.  You're arguing against yourself.

[Klaustrophobia]

He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes.  Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too.  Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.

Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck:  sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.

or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.

where was this prayer mandated?  where is it established as official procedure?  no one is bible thumping on behalf of the government.  banning people from praying in public is a HELL of a lot more against the first amendment than allowing them to do so.

[karajorma]

Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).

Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?

[Nuke]

Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).

Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?

i figure the blood sacrifice and the half nude chick they use as an altar, i dont think that would fly very well in congress.