@ozzfest72 Well said mate. If you try and reason with fundies they get angry and violent because their intelligence is insulted, but they'd rather punch on, than reason, with well thought out arguments which we all know leads them to realise they are wrong. At the end of the argument they'll finish it with the following sentence, "I have faith. That's why." So backwards it's ridiculous. What about "Faith" in Unicorns, Santa, sober Irishmen . . smart fundamentalists. Exasperating.
The next religious moron that comes to my door or gets in my face will be face down in the dirt! Its hard to fathom that it is the year 2011 and crazy low IQ magical thinking still exist in society! A person is intelligent but people in general are total complete idiots. I feel like I am in the "Twilight Zone"! A person that is unable to use the power of observation and the abilty to reason is 100% INSANE PERIOD
"One Nation Under God." " In God We Trust" "...laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,..." "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." There is even a ten commandments on the door of the Supreme Court. The US GOV hires Pastors for US Military and even builds churches for service members. I am sure I can find more connections with the State and Church. So where is the separation? You could always move to China they don't like Jesus.
Well this is disgusting. Ridiculous stupid superstition endorced by state. Fucking discrace. Good that these brave individuals fight against these disgusting barbaric cults. Keep up the good work guys!
And then after an objection was peaceably declared, that person and another filming was assaulted and beaten ... In the name of Jesus ... right? Because that is what Jesus would have done ...
this couldn't of turned out any better for people against state sponsored prayer! this should be enough to draw attention to the whole situation, great job, mitch! you're a constitutional hero :)
If you want a Goverment run by Athiest move to CHINA. The contitution says that Goverment shall make no LAW favoring one religion over another! Why are we so insecure and afraid of the very ideas that gave us us our freedom in the first place. W/O GOD you are just another animal having no free will and the only thing that matters is SELF. When man is left to self all suffer!
@drandersw That s OK , I'll keep whats between my ears and you can keep believing you evolved from some primative micro organism! I hope before you die and stand before the very One you deny and mock that someone or something opens your mind up to the TRUTH! Maybe your heart and life will change and you will
be able to communicate with people w/o attacking them personally. I am sorry you feel the way you do!
@HomeMovieMaker If you believe that you will begin to experience remarkable things after you die then isn't it in fact the stuff between your ears that is preventing you from experiencing it right now?
@HomeMovieMaker naah. if i want goverment run buy atheist, i move to shouth korea, or japan or any of the scandinavic countries. you know, those countries with the best quality of life, and lowest crimerate.
Truth is : The founding fathers were religious people who formed a Goverment based on Christian principles. The constitutution protects everyones ability to practice their religion or lack there of.
@HomeMovieMaker im afraid you are wrong. the founding fathers where mostly deists, and some of them where atheists. they allso opposed religion very openly. they allso statet and direct quote"the constitution and goverment of United states of america is no way based on christian religion" unquote. the bible only supports monarcy, and it even says that monarcs are chosen by god. this is direct opposion of the idea that is "power to the people"
I usually find that people that want to allow prayers like this are ok with it only if it is their particular religion. If the prayer was to allah or some other imaginary friend.. they would not go for it...
That religious asshole is talking about listening to god's voice. When the insanity is so progressed that they hear voices in their heads, that's scary.
Unless there is a law that they MUST or MUST NOT pray before each congressional hearing, then these are people just exercising their liberty to pray and to object to the prayer.
No one is violating the constitution here. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I'm glad he has the liberty to pray, but the fact that someone was assaulted for exercising his liberty to object is inexcusable.
It was a state endorsed prayer for a specific religion. That is a direct violation of the first amendment. I don't think any prayer at a government meeting is acceptable. However, the courts have ruled that non-specific, ceremonial deism is permitted, but the preacher specifically said, "...your son, Jesus Christ" at the end, which is absolutely a violation based on current rulings.
I'm not saying it's not in bad taste, I'm just saying that nothing they did was against the constitution unless there was a law enacted that says one must or must not pray to any God he sees fit to pray to.
And what "current rulings" are you talking about? If there are current rulings that say what this man did was wrong, then they are doing more damage by restring his liberties than this man is doing by praying.
Rulings on any matter of state endorsed religion such as religious displays and "under god" in the constitution have had one common theme; they must be completely neutral (the defense has always been to refer to it as "ceremonial deism"). Nobody's rights are being taken away by removing an opening prayer at a STATE meeting. He and everybody else there is free to pray whenever they want, but when the state sanctions the prayer, they are endorsing (respecting) a religion.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" choosing to endorse a religion is not making a law establishing religion. Regardless of what the current rulings are, the spirit of the constitution is not in danger when people decide to pray to a christian God at a state meeting.
The problem here is the fact that the people protesting were losing their liberties, not that a man was praying to the "christian" god.
This is actually getting a little annoying now, so I think I'm done after this. It is not "that a man was praying to the "christian" god.", people did not decide to pray at a state meeting. It was a man giving a prayer in an official capacity on behalf of the state. The prayer was a part of the meeting. The state's business, their legal proceedings, included a prayer. It was an official state prayer. The state was recognizing a religion as a part of their legal proceedings.
If there was no law, then there was no wrongdoing. I can't see how you could argue any other way. The constitution should be viewed as a sort of holy book for the united states. Don't trust current rulings over the constitution. That is how countries fail, they loose sight of their roots. It's frustrating that you don't understand the spirit of democracy. Nothing was wrong here until that man who was protesting was assaulted. We solve problems through compromise. Not laws.
@zacharykelway Fascism is okay when it don't reach the absurd of attacking a citizen for his religious beliefs. Pinochet, Mussolini or Getúlio Vargas never did so.
@MrCoudi There is a whole lot wrong with fascism. What about the centralized authoritarian government? What about tyranny? What about having no rights? Or being forced to live in fear because of lies about another group of people? It's not okay to me.
Holy shit! He's pointing out that someone is breaking the law and the police violently go after him rather then the guy breaking the law?! These guys need to be fired at the very least. Possibly even arrested.
It's disturbing how the "Amen" drowned out the objections based on the Constitution at a STATE MEETING! What does this say about the people who are leading our country? Even if you are religious, do you really want dogma and government to coincide? One is based off of an outdated, barbaric, hateful, misogynistic faith based belief, the other designed to protect the public and ensure equality and justice for all.
@CropDuster33 Undoubtedly he's done so. The sad thing is that HE was actually charged with a crime (and that it actually took time to get him acquitted- the judge should have thrown out the trial immediately).
This is disgusting. I am thankful for the individuals in this video who stood up for EVERY U.S. citizen's separation of church and state. There's more of a back-story to this protest that I found out about by listening to the FFRF's (Freedom From Religion Foundation) podcast today.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So to all those who say the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, you can all go get fucked. I'm sick of hearing morons trying to deny it. God damn you it's right there in the first amendment, go read it and quit wasting our time.
@afterhumanity333 Hey take it easy. I completely agree with separation of church and state. I am very anti-religion and don't want it forced upon anyone. I was trying to figure out where in the first amendment there is a separation of church and state, and I found my answer.
Of all places why would they being saying a Christian prayer in the Hawaii legislature? After the Christian missionaries came there diseased their people, stole their land, and did everything they could to destroy their culture. Now you say a little prayer before convening and violently protect a prayer which was violently imposed on you. What SUCKERS!!! Those men in suits should be pitied really. They were slaves to masters who died long ago, now they're slaves to themselves. LOL
Yeah this does violate this Constitution. I hope the people who assaulted the man are criminally prosecuted, that sort of behavior should not be tolerated.
Welcome to United Cristian Emirates, first Afghanistan / Iran style western Theocracy, soon to be where USA was... RIP USA, "god" bless UCE!!!!
Can you guys in USA show us more videos of how to destroy your own country by letting retarded religious freaks take over, just so that we can learn from your failure.
Relax guys, we have the same problem here, extremely loud minority of retarded religious fanatics who think they can impose their rules on the "silent" majority... that breaks their balls every time they try something stupid.
I am just teasing you all and hoping that you will get up and start fighting those idiots, I don`t like idea of another religious state with nuclear weapons, Pakistan is enough!
@sahardoom well hopefully we wont fail at all we will defend the constitution and the first ammendment we will not allow religious extremeists who belive in a talking snake to overule us
There is more information on this to be found via the friendlyatheist website. The court that found Kahle "not guilty" did, according to the info there, say (more or less): "Number one, there was no disorderly conduct. Number two, he has a first amendment right to speak in a public forum such as he did. And number three, the legislature was violating our U.S. Constitution as well as the Hawaii constitution by having these invocations".
The separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video.
You ignorant fucking asshole. It says respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, and clearly, this government was establishing the religion of christianity. He's not even allowed to say anything about god, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL ABOUT RELIGION YOU SHIT MONGERING ASSHOLE. And if you think that the government SHOULD be able to do this kind of thing, favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over non religion at all, you are a sad, sad bigot with no tolerance. Fuck you
@TheLiberalSoup ha ha ha ha ha lol. Thank you for your comment. That was exactly the reaction I was expecting. Loved it. ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks. Hilarious.
The United States=/= individual states. The 1st amendment only says that Congress can make no law establishing a religion. So there's nothing you can use in the 1st amendment against the states. What you have to show is that somehow this prayer violates the 14th amendment. Who's liberty is deprived? Who's privileges or immunities have been deprived? No one's rights are violated here.
@migkillertwo Individual states don't have a say in every law. The constitution is federal law and no state may violate it. No one's liberty is necessarily deprived here, but it is definitely compromised. The first amendment grants freedom of religion, meaning you have the freedom to choose what you believe. In my opinion, and many others, practicing religion in a governmental proceeding is a form of forcing a religion on somebody, thus compromising their freedom of religion.
@migkillertwo "There is nothing states can't do unless it is specifically prohibited by the constitution" - That's exactly what I was saying. I completely agree.
I specifically said that I view pushing a specific religion in a governmental proceeding as a violation of the first amendment because it can inhibit someone's ability to decide their religious views for themselves. I understand that people will feel differently.
"It can inhibit someone's ability to decide their religious views for themselves"
Just like ONLY teaching evolution in science, just like not teaching the humanities in public schools, etc. YOU have to show that this is a right that is somehow enumerated by the 14th amendment; clearly the evidence says otherwise.
@migkillertwo I'm not talking about the 14th amendment. I never mentioned that. Teaching someone about evolution will make them better educated when making a decision as far as what they believe. The simple fact is that religion is disappearing, and rightfully so. Educating people about the facts that involve religion is actually helping someone make their choice, not making it harder. The difference is endorsing Christianity without using any evidence, just prayer, and endorsing knowledge.
@migkillertwo in regards to the 10th ammendment argument you made you need to read up on your james madison. the ammendment includes anything respecting religion James madison said about that "the constitution of the US forbids anything like an establishment of national religion."
@thunder2falcon15 "The first amendment grants freedom of religion,..."
Actually, I think the more significant part of the first amendment is not the guarantee of freedom of religion (though that's fine), but it's the rule against congress establishing one. That is the wall right there.
@migkillertwo Everyone = Congress....that is our freedom, that we are equal to even those that govern us, you just don't want the responsibility of choosing for yourself
I am not a congressman. We are not Congress. The 1st amendment says, clearly, that CONGRESS cannot make a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Can you show which part of the constitution denies States the power to promote one religion?
@migkillertwo "Can you show which part of the constitution denies States the power to promote one religion?"
Do you understand why the framers of the constitution erected a wall between church and state? If you did, you'd understand why it's just as wrong for states to sponsor a religion as it is for the feds.
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not have the force of law. The separation of church and state on the level of the state governments is not codified by the Constitution.
@migkillertwo "Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not have the force of law."
Clearly a letter written to someone doesn't have the force of law - but it does clarify the intent of the framers of the law.
And you're avoiding the question -- what possible reason could there be to forbid something at the federal level but sneak it in at the state level? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. State/Church bonding is wrong.
It's not "snuck in" at the state level OccamKant. The framers were actually very forthright about it.
And there are plenty of things that the individual state governments can do that the federal government cannot do. This is codified in the 10th amendment. Have you read the 10th amendment?
Well here's an example. Have you heard of the case United States V. Lopez? The Gun Free School Zones act made it a federal felony to carry a firearm into a school. Alfonso Lopez...
...brought a loaded .38 spl revolver into a high school and was arrested, tried, and convicted by the United States. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the Constitution never grants the United States a general police power.
@migkillertwo So continue your explanation please. Are you actually proposing that the framers of the constitution wanted church/state separation at the federal level but didn't want it at the state level?
Yeah, actually, I do believe that. In fact, that's WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED! After the constitution was ratified, Connecticut had an official STATE CHURCH! The individual states had sabbath laws prohibiting people from working on the sabbath.
@migkillertwo So why do you suppose that the framers didn't want federal joinder of church and state but (in your words) DID want regional joinder of church and state? If the problem they were trying to avoid was the oppression that came from having a theocratically tainted government, why would they then want a theocratically tainted regional government?
The founders didn't have separation of church and state at the state level because they believed in this oft-ignored legal concept called "States Rights".
@migkillertwo You keep ignoring the question. Why is it important to keep the taint of religiosity out of the federal government, but jump right in and slather it all over the state governments?
You must realize that you're being dishonest. Isn't Jesus against dishonesty? By continuing to avoid answering the question, and answer unasked questions instead, you talk much but say nothing.
I reject the premise of your question. The Founders did not keep "the taint of religiosity" out of federal government. In fact, in the earliest days there were actually church services held in the capitol building, which Thomas Jefferson attended. The establishment clause was written into the constitution because the 13 different states had different predominant denominations of christianity, and they didn't want to create a tyranny of the majority. The founders were trying to...
@migkillertwo Thomas Jefferson attended? The same Thomas Jefferson who edited his own version of the bible with all of Jesus' miracles cut out? Is that really anything like what you would consider christianity.
Do you have references for these church services in the capitol building? This is the first I've heard of it.
@migkillertwo "The Sovereign State of Hawaii =/= Congress"
"Sovereign State of Hawaii" - that's an oxymoron. How can it be one of the states and still be sovereign? Not your point, I know, but seems daft to me.
Anyway...
What exactly do you think the founders of your country meant, if not a clear non-involvement in religion? Do you understand WHY they wanted a separation between church and state?
"how can it be one of the states and still be sovereign?"
Because the states came together and formed the union.
"Do you understand why they wanted a separation between church and state?"
They wanted something like this because they didn't want one denomination of christianity to dominate the rest of the denominations in the confederation.
@migkillertwo "They wanted something like this because they didn't want one denomination of christianity to dominate the rest of the denominations in the confederation. "
No. They wanted a separation between church and state because they had just left a country with a state religion and they knew how harmful that is.
The treaty of tripoli makes it crystal clear that they didn't want any religion at all, and they specifically mention christianity.
@OccamKant I agree. However, there is no law coming into play here. It seems as if this is something they chose to do without passing a law to do so. Is it illegal? It's debatable. I think it is.
@thunder2falcon15 "I agree. However, there is no law coming into play here."
It's a slippery slope. By formally acknowledging and even requiring a particular religion as part of a government function, the government is encouraging the establishment of a religion. It is a small step from encouraging it to making it law.
You nip something like this in the bud, you don't wait for it to be too late.
@OccamKant Absolutely. Whether or not it is technically against the constitution to do what they are doing, the guy has a very good point. Do not submit. Make it known.
@migkillertwo Think of it this way: a kid who is grown up learning only about Christianity and no other religion is going to believe in Christianity. There is a slight chance he won't believe in anything at all, but it is much more likely that he will believe what his parents and society are teaching him. I believe that this form of pushing a specific religion on somebody inhibits their ability to choose their own religious beliefs.
The state is not "pushing" a religion on anyone. Everyone still has the right to proselytize their own religion even if the state endorses one particular religion.
Furthermore, you would have to somehow demonstrate that people have a fundamental right for the state to create a state of affairs where students can dispassionately weigh the evidence for the worldviews.
There is no way in hell that the framers of the 14th amendment included this in "liberty" or "privileges and immunities"...
...Even when the 14th amendment was ratified, states were still holding prayer in their government buildings. Schools still taught creationism as fact, and public schools still mandated communal prayer.
The separation of church and state is, frankly, a myth
@migkillertwo no the separation of church and state is a fact - something christians are beginning to realize (albeit slowly and painfully). asserting that it is a myth is...well..ignorant.
think of all the challenges to religious activities in the public forum in recent years....how many have the religious groups won? kicked out of schools, government, courts....bit by bit the stain of religion is being cleaned from the state.
@migkillertwo "The separation of church and state is, frankly, a myth"
Bullshit. Just because people flout the law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is a law against killing people, yet there are still murderers.
Just because you really really want something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Are you actually delusional, or are you just trolling? I've never been able to tell with you.
I've done a thorough exegesis of the Constitution on this issue right here on the comments section. Nobody has shown that Teaching ID, or prayer in the halls of government, abridges a 14th amendment-protected right.
@migkillertwo nope. just look at hawai that took a long time to form. geology happens to be true, geologic columns are accurate, we can trace dna records, radiometric dating is accurate, fossil records are accurate, dendrachronology is accurate and you, mig, are wrong.
@migkillertwo are you a fundie who believes humans were created as is 6000 yrs ago or a religous person who believes in evolution. because if it is the fundie one then I could see why you would have to ask about all of those sciences
@migkillertwo . "Nobody has shown that Teaching ID, or prayer in the halls of government, abridges a 14th amendment-protected right."
I never said it was a problem with the 14th amendment. I said it was a problem with the 1st - the establishment clause.
By government officials formally invoking a religious service, they are promoting the establishment of a religion. The fact that people pointing this out got ejected and arrested puts it on par with a law.
religion has no place in politics. religion is more dangerous then nukes as far as im concerned and if fanatic like that take control of the government were all gonna have to buy alot of atomic-proof umbrellas.
@migkillertwo Wow, gotta love when Christians compare atheists to the Soviets, a shameless appeal to emotion. Logical fallacies aside, most atheists in the U.S. become atheists after education in science, theology, or both. This is unlike the USSR, in which the state enforced atheism with for no logical reason, only political ones. This explains the increase of religion in the new Russian Federation.
Communism and religion have one important thing in common - dogmatism. Atheists despise this.
"the fact that the Soviet Government was vehemently atheistic"
You see it as atheism vs. theism. I see it as freethinkers vs. dogmatists. In your view hitler and stalin are on my side. In my view they're clearly on yours. Stalin banned religion because it is a dogma that competed with his own political dogma. Nazism, communism, theism etc are all irrational dogmas. You all subscribe to a dogma. I don't. That's the point. You just don't get it.
@migkillertwo You're right, I didn't read the comment you replied to and jumped to a conclusion. However, my point remains that the USSR was fanatically dogmatic.
if religion consumes politics it will inevitably end with war!
we see it in the middle east all the time and we saw it during the crusades.
its time for people to relize god is more then a book and words. Our species should be above tribal diety worship by this day in age, so dont forget how little you really are migkillertwo
@migkillertwo To me, there is no difference between pushing a religion and endorsing a religion. And, by pushing a religion, I feel that it inhibits one's ability to decide for themselves what their religious views are. And therefore, to me, it is a violation of the part of the first amendment that guarantees freedom of religion.
This is stupid. You handle it in a forum where people are willing to listen. You go to a place where the majority feel a specific way; YOU LOSE EVERY TIME! Dumb ass.
Although I hate religion and all belief doctrines in general, the separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which I believe was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video. Don't get me wrong, I come in peace. I hate Christianity just as much as the next guy. I'm just looking for a debate of sorts...
@thunder2falcon15 It's a nuanced issue, but I think the guy has a legitimate argument. It was an official government procedure, and they were making a blatantly Christian prayer, which could be perceived as an official endorsement of Christianity by the United States of America. There's no way you can make a truly multi-faith prayer, and even if you could, you'd still be honoring a higher power that 10-15% of your population does not believe in. I don't demand an atheist nation, just a fair one.
@nemo3590 That's true that it was an official government procedure including a Christian prayer. I'm trying to figure out where exactly the violation lies. I feel as if there must be one, but I do not know exactly what.
@thunder2falcon15 I feel like I've read something somewhere...I'm not well-versed in law. If you're not subscribed, I'd recommend going over to ProfMTH's channel. He's an atheist and an expert on law and makes videos on this sort of thing all the time. Plus, he's just generally awesome.
@thunder2falcon15 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" the interpretation of this portion of the first amendment guards against the government establishing a national religion AND the government giving preference to one religion over another. having an overtly christian prayer violates the second portion.
@riotguards Those were security guards doing their job to get rid of someone disrupting the meeting. It wasn't about their personal beliefs. I think that this could have been handled in a different manner. Such as, a letter written to their local leaders and a petition signed. This act was immature and a lose lose.
This was disgusting and embarrassing. Those two individuals were assaulted.
1st Amendment - 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.
Notice that all gods ignored the prayer? He prayed that a god would speak in a "voice" that could be "listened to" and "heard". I heard only human beings. So yet again a prayer failed miserably. I would think prayer would be stopped in this government chamber on the basis of its perfect record of failure alone.
"Judge Leslie Hayashi found Kahle "NOT GUILTY" and ruled that: "The Senate's [Christian] prayers violate the constitutional separation of church and state.""
Why then are prayers in politics allowed to continue? Why aren't the ones IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION being arrested?
Politicians who swear to uphold the constitution, then willfully ignore it, should be tried for treason. Period.
@TheHigherVoltage the separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video.
@butterflie2484 #1 According to the Supreme Court, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment defines a separation of church and state. Verified in Reynolds v. United States (1879) and again in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
And finds support from the US Government in Clause 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Not to mention, Jesus said to pray in private - not in public like the hypocrites. But hey, when have Christians given a shit what Jesus said.
lol they assaulted 1st amendment activist's in the name of jesus christ, now it's on the internet about to scour the globe. Patriots 1 jesus freaks 0. lol someone's getting coal for x-mass
I have no problem with them arresting and removing the guy disrupting the legislature. (The merit's of his argument, either way, aren't relevant to whether it was legally justified to remove him.)
But going after the guy with the camera? Attacking him? Outside?
I hope the cameraman presses criminal charges and sues the fuck out of them.
Comment removed
adrianeaglrck 6 months ago
@ozzfest72 Well said mate. If you try and reason with fundies they get angry and violent because their intelligence is insulted, but they'd rather punch on, than reason, with well thought out arguments which we all know leads them to realise they are wrong. At the end of the argument they'll finish it with the following sentence, "I have faith. That's why." So backwards it's ridiculous. What about "Faith" in Unicorns, Santa, sober Irishmen . . smart fundamentalists. Exasperating.
jackiejackie44 6 months ago
The next religious moron that comes to my door or gets in my face will be face down in the dirt! Its hard to fathom that it is the year 2011 and crazy low IQ magical thinking still exist in society! A person is intelligent but people in general are total complete idiots. I feel like I am in the "Twilight Zone"! A person that is unable to use the power of observation and the abilty to reason is 100% INSANE PERIOD
ozzfest72 7 months ago 2
"One Nation Under God." " In God We Trust" "...laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,..." "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." There is even a ten commandments on the door of the Supreme Court. The US GOV hires Pastors for US Military and even builds churches for service members. I am sure I can find more connections with the State and Church. So where is the separation? You could always move to China they don't like Jesus.
lonnyonline 10 months ago
@lonnyonline the seperation is in constitution. but it seemes like religius only uphold laws when they please them.
gethsoftware 8 months ago
@gethsoftware China will up hold your law of church and state.
lonnyonline 8 months ago
Mitch and Kevin - Awesome!
lc237 11 months ago
Well this is disgusting. Ridiculous stupid superstition endorced by state. Fucking discrace. Good that these brave individuals fight against these disgusting barbaric cults. Keep up the good work guys!
bary1234 11 months ago
Cops don't obey the laws they enforce. Cops are the country's biggest gang.
CandJCuesta 11 months ago
Hypocrites ...
Ironmaw1776 11 months ago
Division of church and state? Really ... ?
And then after an objection was peaceably declared, that person and another filming was assaulted and beaten ... In the name of Jesus ... right? Because that is what Jesus would have done ...
Really?
Ironmaw1776 11 months ago
godam
MrFinkle20 1 year ago
this couldn't of turned out any better for people against state sponsored prayer! this should be enough to draw attention to the whole situation, great job, mitch! you're a constitutional hero :)
IzzyBunneh 1 year ago
They'd best settle this one...out of court.
AGNOSSI 1 year ago
If you want a Goverment run by Athiest move to CHINA. The contitution says that Goverment shall make no LAW favoring one religion over another! Why are we so insecure and afraid of the very ideas that gave us us our freedom in the first place. W/O GOD you are just another animal having no free will and the only thing that matters is SELF. When man is left to self all suffer!
HomeMovieMaker 1 year ago
@HomeMovieMaker you need to flush out the stuff between your ears.
drandersw 1 year ago
@drandersw That s OK , I'll keep whats between my ears and you can keep believing you evolved from some primative micro organism! I hope before you die and stand before the very One you deny and mock that someone or something opens your mind up to the TRUTH! Maybe your heart and life will change and you will
be able to communicate with people w/o attacking them personally. I am sorry you feel the way you do!
HomeMovieMaker 1 year ago
@HomeMovieMaker If you believe that you will begin to experience remarkable things after you die then isn't it in fact the stuff between your ears that is preventing you from experiencing it right now?
drandersw 1 year ago
@HomeMovieMaker naah. if i want goverment run buy atheist, i move to shouth korea, or japan or any of the scandinavic countries. you know, those countries with the best quality of life, and lowest crimerate.
gethsoftware 8 months ago
Truth is : The founding fathers were religious people who formed a Goverment based on Christian principles. The constitutution protects everyones ability to practice their religion or lack there of.
HomeMovieMaker 1 year ago
@HomeMovieMaker im afraid you are wrong. the founding fathers where mostly deists, and some of them where atheists. they allso opposed religion very openly. they allso statet and direct quote"the constitution and goverment of United states of america is no way based on christian religion" unquote. the bible only supports monarcy, and it even says that monarcs are chosen by god. this is direct opposion of the idea that is "power to the people"
gethsoftware 8 months ago
I usually find that people that want to allow prayers like this are ok with it only if it is their particular religion. If the prayer was to allah or some other imaginary friend.. they would not go for it...
ricoswerve1260 1 year ago
AMEN ...
DON'T LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!
mikkelchap 1 year ago
That religious asshole is talking about listening to god's voice. When the insanity is so progressed that they hear voices in their heads, that's scary.
drandersw 1 year ago
Prayers have RESUMED in the council under the rule of this man: ngarcia@honolulu.gov
Email Mr. Garcia, and please request the prayers be stopped again, as they violate the constitution.
Again, that's ngarcia@honolulu.gov
Feuyaer 1 year ago
Unless there is a law that they MUST or MUST NOT pray before each congressional hearing, then these are people just exercising their liberty to pray and to object to the prayer.
No one is violating the constitution here. The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I'm glad he has the liberty to pray, but the fact that someone was assaulted for exercising his liberty to object is inexcusable.
TruthisNatureisGod 1 year ago
@TruthisNatureisGod
It was a state endorsed prayer for a specific religion. That is a direct violation of the first amendment. I don't think any prayer at a government meeting is acceptable. However, the courts have ruled that non-specific, ceremonial deism is permitted, but the preacher specifically said, "...your son, Jesus Christ" at the end, which is absolutely a violation based on current rulings.
YashinNashi 1 year ago
Comment removed
EmmaLeigh18 1 year ago
@YashinNashi
I'm not saying it's not in bad taste, I'm just saying that nothing they did was against the constitution unless there was a law enacted that says one must or must not pray to any God he sees fit to pray to.
And what "current rulings" are you talking about? If there are current rulings that say what this man did was wrong, then they are doing more damage by restring his liberties than this man is doing by praying.
TruthisNatureisGod 1 year ago
@TruthisNatureisGod
Rulings on any matter of state endorsed religion such as religious displays and "under god" in the constitution have had one common theme; they must be completely neutral (the defense has always been to refer to it as "ceremonial deism"). Nobody's rights are being taken away by removing an opening prayer at a STATE meeting. He and everybody else there is free to pray whenever they want, but when the state sanctions the prayer, they are endorsing (respecting) a religion.
YashinNashi 1 year ago
@YashinNashi
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" choosing to endorse a religion is not making a law establishing religion. Regardless of what the current rulings are, the spirit of the constitution is not in danger when people decide to pray to a christian God at a state meeting.
The problem here is the fact that the people protesting were losing their liberties, not that a man was praying to the "christian" god.
TruthisNatureisGod 1 year ago
@TruthisNatureisGod
This is actually getting a little annoying now, so I think I'm done after this. It is not "that a man was praying to the "christian" god.", people did not decide to pray at a state meeting. It was a man giving a prayer in an official capacity on behalf of the state. The prayer was a part of the meeting. The state's business, their legal proceedings, included a prayer. It was an official state prayer. The state was recognizing a religion as a part of their legal proceedings.
YashinNashi 1 year ago 5
@YashinNashi
If there was no law, then there was no wrongdoing. I can't see how you could argue any other way. The constitution should be viewed as a sort of holy book for the united states. Don't trust current rulings over the constitution. That is how countries fail, they loose sight of their roots. It's frustrating that you don't understand the spirit of democracy. Nothing was wrong here until that man who was protesting was assaulted. We solve problems through compromise. Not laws.
TruthisNatureisGod 1 year ago
Comment removed
EmmaLeigh18 1 year ago
DEMOCRACY AND LIBERALISM VS FASCISM AND THEOCRACY.
zacharykelway 1 year ago
@zacharykelway Fascism is okay when it don't reach the absurd of attacking a citizen for his religious beliefs. Pinochet, Mussolini or Getúlio Vargas never did so.
MrCoudi 1 year ago
@MrCoudi There is a whole lot wrong with fascism. What about the centralized authoritarian government? What about tyranny? What about having no rights? Or being forced to live in fear because of lies about another group of people? It's not okay to me.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
Camera guys camera should shoot deadly sarin gas when the cameras are smacked by public officials!
MrWonkoSane 1 year ago
Holy shit! He's pointing out that someone is breaking the law and the police violently go after him rather then the guy breaking the law?! These guys need to be fired at the very least. Possibly even arrested.
Arikiel 1 year ago 8
WOW - great investigative journalism. These dimmies in Hawaii need to spend some time in a class room!
ashtool 1 year ago
Hawaii? You mean this isn't Texas?
pmarie2003 1 year ago
It's disturbing how the "Amen" drowned out the objections based on the Constitution at a STATE MEETING! What does this say about the people who are leading our country? Even if you are religious, do you really want dogma and government to coincide? One is based off of an outdated, barbaric, hateful, misogynistic faith based belief, the other designed to protect the public and ensure equality and justice for all.
sillymonkey829 1 year ago
sue the police, NOW
anonymousstormchaser 1 year ago 2
more people need to do this. did he press charges on them?
CropDuster33 1 year ago 2
@CropDuster33 Undoubtedly he's done so. The sad thing is that HE was actually charged with a crime (and that it actually took time to get him acquitted- the judge should have thrown out the trial immediately).
Macrochenia 1 year ago
This is disgusting. I am thankful for the individuals in this video who stood up for EVERY U.S. citizen's separation of church and state. There's more of a back-story to this protest that I found out about by listening to the FFRF's (Freedom From Religion Foundation) podcast today.
bballerstud2004 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Separation of church of State``
theonlymatheus 1 year ago
It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch from Holy Grail, "Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
datRock 1 year ago
Holy shit! Disgusting!
urantivirus 1 year ago
The First Amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So to all those who say the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, you can all go get fucked. I'm sick of hearing morons trying to deny it. God damn you it's right there in the first amendment, go read it and quit wasting our time.
afterhumanity333 1 year ago
@afterhumanity333 Hey take it easy. I completely agree with separation of church and state. I am very anti-religion and don't want it forced upon anyone. I was trying to figure out where in the first amendment there is a separation of church and state, and I found my answer.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15
Sorry about that, just gets annoying at times to keep repeating myself so i get a little agitated. xD
It was my mistake for not showing some patience, sorry for sounding like a bit of a madman.
afterhumanity333 1 year ago
@afterhumanity333 Haha its cool :)
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afterhumanity333 your ignorance does not offend me.
gethsoftware 8 months ago
Of all places why would they being saying a Christian prayer in the Hawaii legislature? After the Christian missionaries came there diseased their people, stole their land, and did everything they could to destroy their culture. Now you say a little prayer before convening and violently protect a prayer which was violently imposed on you. What SUCKERS!!! Those men in suits should be pitied really. They were slaves to masters who died long ago, now they're slaves to themselves. LOL
762foru 1 year ago 2
Yeah this does violate this Constitution. I hope the people who assaulted the man are criminally prosecuted, that sort of behavior should not be tolerated.
The fuck is wrong with these people?
afterhumanity333 1 year ago
Welcome to United Cristian Emirates, first Afghanistan / Iran style western Theocracy, soon to be where USA was... RIP USA, "god" bless UCE!!!!
Can you guys in USA show us more videos of how to destroy your own country by letting retarded religious freaks take over, just so that we can learn from your failure.
sahardoom 1 year ago
@sahardoom can you show us more ways of how to be a patronizing ass by lumping people together?
twizelby 1 year ago
@twizelby sure, what do you need? :D
Relax guys, we have the same problem here, extremely loud minority of retarded religious fanatics who think they can impose their rules on the "silent" majority... that breaks their balls every time they try something stupid.
I am just teasing you all and hoping that you will get up and start fighting those idiots, I don`t like idea of another religious state with nuclear weapons, Pakistan is enough!
sahardoom 1 year ago 2
@sahardoom well hopefully we wont fail at all we will defend the constitution and the first ammendment we will not allow religious extremeists who belive in a talking snake to overule us
lonewolfM16 1 year ago
All of those idiots must go to jail.
FreedomResistance 1 year ago
HOLY shit. HOLY, HOLY shit.
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
Wow, that's some Corleone shit.
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
There is more information on this to be found via the friendlyatheist website. The court that found Kahle "not guilty" did, according to the info there, say (more or less): "Number one, there was no disorderly conduct. Number two, he has a first amendment right to speak in a public forum such as he did. And number three, the legislature was violating our U.S. Constitution as well as the Hawaii constitution by having these invocations".
Nalae1978 1 year ago
The separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video.
butterflie2484 1 year ago
You ignorant fucking asshole. It says respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, and clearly, this government was establishing the religion of christianity. He's not even allowed to say anything about god, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL ABOUT RELIGION YOU SHIT MONGERING ASSHOLE. And if you think that the government SHOULD be able to do this kind of thing, favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over non religion at all, you are a sad, sad bigot with no tolerance. Fuck you
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup ha ha ha ha ha lol. Thank you for your comment. That was exactly the reaction I was expecting. Loved it. ha ha ha ha ha. Thanks. Hilarious.
butterflie2484 1 year ago
I'd like to know which part of the 14th amendment they violated.
Dont forget guys, the 1st amendment only applies to the UNITED STATES.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Dude, Hawaii is in the United States...
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15
The United States=/= individual states. The 1st amendment only says that Congress can make no law establishing a religion. So there's nothing you can use in the 1st amendment against the states. What you have to show is that somehow this prayer violates the 14th amendment. Who's liberty is deprived? Who's privileges or immunities have been deprived? No one's rights are violated here.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Individual states don't have a say in every law. The constitution is federal law and no state may violate it. No one's liberty is necessarily deprived here, but it is definitely compromised. The first amendment grants freedom of religion, meaning you have the freedom to choose what you believe. In my opinion, and many others, practicing religion in a governmental proceeding is a form of forcing a religion on somebody, thus compromising their freedom of religion.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15
"The constitution is federal law and no state may violate it."
Read the 10th amendment. There is nothing states can't do unless it is specifically prohibited by the constitution.
"practicing religion in a governmental proceeding is a form of forcing a religion, thus compromising their freedom of religion"
There is nothing prohibiting them from exercising their own religion as they see fit by a state implicitly endorsing one religion.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "There is nothing states can't do unless it is specifically prohibited by the constitution" - That's exactly what I was saying. I completely agree.
I specifically said that I view pushing a specific religion in a governmental proceeding as a violation of the first amendment because it can inhibit someone's ability to decide their religious views for themselves. I understand that people will feel differently.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15
"It can inhibit someone's ability to decide their religious views for themselves"
Just like ONLY teaching evolution in science, just like not teaching the humanities in public schools, etc. YOU have to show that this is a right that is somehow enumerated by the 14th amendment; clearly the evidence says otherwise.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo I'm not talking about the 14th amendment. I never mentioned that. Teaching someone about evolution will make them better educated when making a decision as far as what they believe. The simple fact is that religion is disappearing, and rightfully so. Educating people about the facts that involve religion is actually helping someone make their choice, not making it harder. The difference is endorsing Christianity without using any evidence, just prayer, and endorsing knowledge.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@migkillertwo in regards to the 10th ammendment argument you made you need to read up on your james madison. the ammendment includes anything respecting religion James madison said about that "the constitution of the US forbids anything like an establishment of national religion."
twizelby 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 "The first amendment grants freedom of religion,..."
Actually, I think the more significant part of the first amendment is not the guarantee of freedom of religion (though that's fine), but it's the rule against congress establishing one. That is the wall right there.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
The Sovereign State of Hawaii =/= Congress
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Everyone = Congress....that is our freedom, that we are equal to even those that govern us, you just don't want the responsibility of choosing for yourself
EmmaLeigh18 1 year ago
@EmmaLeigh18
I am not a congressman. We are not Congress. The 1st amendment says, clearly, that CONGRESS cannot make a law respecting the establishment of a religion. Can you show which part of the constitution denies States the power to promote one religion?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo You are a despicable creature. That's all I have say.
HitodamaKyrie 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Yes, Section 4 of the Hawaii State Constitution. "No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion."
762foru 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "Can you show which part of the constitution denies States the power to promote one religion?"
Do you understand why the framers of the constitution erected a wall between church and state? If you did, you'd understand why it's just as wrong for states to sponsor a religion as it is for the feds.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not have the force of law. The separation of church and state on the level of the state governments is not codified by the Constitution.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists does not have the force of law."
Clearly a letter written to someone doesn't have the force of law - but it does clarify the intent of the framers of the law.
And you're avoiding the question -- what possible reason could there be to forbid something at the federal level but sneak it in at the state level? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Murder is wrong. Slavery is wrong. State/Church bonding is wrong.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
It's not "snuck in" at the state level OccamKant. The framers were actually very forthright about it.
And there are plenty of things that the individual state governments can do that the federal government cannot do. This is codified in the 10th amendment. Have you read the 10th amendment?
Well here's an example. Have you heard of the case United States V. Lopez? The Gun Free School Zones act made it a federal felony to carry a firearm into a school. Alfonso Lopez...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...brought a loaded .38 spl revolver into a high school and was arrested, tried, and convicted by the United States. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction because the Constitution never grants the United States a general police power.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo So continue your explanation please. Are you actually proposing that the framers of the constitution wanted church/state separation at the federal level but didn't want it at the state level?
Do you actually believe that?
OccamKant 1 year ago
"Do you actually believe that?"
Yeah, actually, I do believe that. In fact, that's WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED! After the constitution was ratified, Connecticut had an official STATE CHURCH! The individual states had sabbath laws prohibiting people from working on the sabbath.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo So why do you suppose that the framers didn't want federal joinder of church and state but (in your words) DID want regional joinder of church and state? If the problem they were trying to avoid was the oppression that came from having a theocratically tainted government, why would they then want a theocratically tainted regional government?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
The founders didn't have separation of church and state at the state level because they believed in this oft-ignored legal concept called "States Rights".
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo You keep ignoring the question. Why is it important to keep the taint of religiosity out of the federal government, but jump right in and slather it all over the state governments?
You must realize that you're being dishonest. Isn't Jesus against dishonesty? By continuing to avoid answering the question, and answer unasked questions instead, you talk much but say nothing.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
I reject the premise of your question. The Founders did not keep "the taint of religiosity" out of federal government. In fact, in the earliest days there were actually church services held in the capitol building, which Thomas Jefferson attended. The establishment clause was written into the constitution because the 13 different states had different predominant denominations of christianity, and they didn't want to create a tyranny of the majority. The founders were trying to...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...preserve self-government among the individual states.
I hope that answers your question and alleves any fears that I am being dishonest :)
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Thomas Jefferson attended? The same Thomas Jefferson who edited his own version of the bible with all of Jesus' miracles cut out? Is that really anything like what you would consider christianity.
Do you have references for these church services in the capitol building? This is the first I've heard of it.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant "Thomas Jefferson attended?"
Yeah, its a matter of public record that Jefferson was a "public" christian.
"Do you have references?"
There are plenty of references out there, but it is most explicitly stated in the July 2, 1795 printing of the Boston Newspaper "Federal Orrery"
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "The Sovereign State of Hawaii =/= Congress"
"Sovereign State of Hawaii" - that's an oxymoron. How can it be one of the states and still be sovereign? Not your point, I know, but seems daft to me.
Anyway...
What exactly do you think the founders of your country meant, if not a clear non-involvement in religion? Do you understand WHY they wanted a separation between church and state?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
"how can it be one of the states and still be sovereign?"
Because the states came together and formed the union.
"Do you understand why they wanted a separation between church and state?"
They wanted something like this because they didn't want one denomination of christianity to dominate the rest of the denominations in the confederation.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "They wanted something like this because they didn't want one denomination of christianity to dominate the rest of the denominations in the confederation. "
No. They wanted a separation between church and state because they had just left a country with a state religion and they knew how harmful that is.
The treaty of tripoli makes it crystal clear that they didn't want any religion at all, and they specifically mention christianity.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant I agree. However, there is no law coming into play here. It seems as if this is something they chose to do without passing a law to do so. Is it illegal? It's debatable. I think it is.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 "I agree. However, there is no law coming into play here."
It's a slippery slope. By formally acknowledging and even requiring a particular religion as part of a government function, the government is encouraging the establishment of a religion. It is a small step from encouraging it to making it law.
You nip something like this in the bud, you don't wait for it to be too late.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant Absolutely. Whether or not it is technically against the constitution to do what they are doing, the guy has a very good point. Do not submit. Make it known.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Think of it this way: a kid who is grown up learning only about Christianity and no other religion is going to believe in Christianity. There is a slight chance he won't believe in anything at all, but it is much more likely that he will believe what his parents and society are teaching him. I believe that this form of pushing a specific religion on somebody inhibits their ability to choose their own religious beliefs.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
The state is not "pushing" a religion on anyone. Everyone still has the right to proselytize their own religion even if the state endorses one particular religion.
Furthermore, you would have to somehow demonstrate that people have a fundamental right for the state to create a state of affairs where students can dispassionately weigh the evidence for the worldviews.
There is no way in hell that the framers of the 14th amendment included this in "liberty" or "privileges and immunities"...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...Even when the 14th amendment was ratified, states were still holding prayer in their government buildings. Schools still taught creationism as fact, and public schools still mandated communal prayer.
The separation of church and state is, frankly, a myth
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo no the separation of church and state is a fact - something christians are beginning to realize (albeit slowly and painfully). asserting that it is a myth is...well..ignorant.
think of all the challenges to religious activities in the public forum in recent years....how many have the religious groups won? kicked out of schools, government, courts....bit by bit the stain of religion is being cleaned from the state.
1n354a 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "The separation of church and state is, frankly, a myth"
Bullshit. Just because people flout the law, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is a law against killing people, yet there are still murderers.
Just because you really really want something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Are you actually delusional, or are you just trolling? I've never been able to tell with you.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
"are you actually delusional"
I've done a thorough exegesis of the Constitution on this issue right here on the comments section. Nobody has shown that Teaching ID, or prayer in the halls of government, abridges a 14th amendment-protected right.
Can you?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo It's against the Constitution - the judge even agreed. You're way out of line.
Mushuukyou 1 year ago
@migkillertwo most states require that textbooks be accurate mig. this means ID cant be taught because it is a sham and a lie
twizelby 1 year ago
@twizelby
That certainly remains to be seen
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo no it doesnt. evolution happened.
twizelby 1 year ago
@migkillertwo nope. just look at hawai that took a long time to form. geology happens to be true, geologic columns are accurate, we can trace dna records, radiometric dating is accurate, fossil records are accurate, dendrachronology is accurate and you, mig, are wrong.
twizelby 1 year ago
@twizelby
and this falsifies intelligent design how exactly?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo are you a fundie who believes humans were created as is 6000 yrs ago or a religous person who believes in evolution. because if it is the fundie one then I could see why you would have to ask about all of those sciences
twizelby 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
Nothing can falsify Intelligent Design. Nor does anything confirm Intelligent Design.
For both reasons, Intelligent Design is unscientific.
qabala 1 year ago
@migkillertwo . "Nobody has shown that Teaching ID, or prayer in the halls of government, abridges a 14th amendment-protected right."
I never said it was a problem with the 14th amendment. I said it was a problem with the 1st - the establishment clause.
By government officials formally invoking a religious service, they are promoting the establishment of a religion. The fact that people pointing this out got ejected and arrested puts it on par with a law.
United States of Taliban.
OccamKant 1 year ago
@OccamKant
"I said it was a problem with the 1st - the establishment clause"
Which only applies to the Federal Government
migkillertwo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@migkillertwo "Which only applies to the Federal Government"
So what do you think the term "united" in "united states" is supposed to mean? Everyone do what the hell they want?
OccamKant 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
religion has no place in politics. religion is more dangerous then nukes as far as im concerned and if fanatic like that take control of the government were all gonna have to buy alot of atomic-proof umbrellas.
purpleSun6292 1 year ago
@purpleSun6292
You're certainly welcome to believe that. But the last time I checked, the owners of the world's largest nuclear stockpiles were anti-theists (USSR).
migkillertwo 1 year ago
Comment removed
CropDuster33 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Wow, gotta love when Christians compare atheists to the Soviets, a shameless appeal to emotion. Logical fallacies aside, most atheists in the U.S. become atheists after education in science, theology, or both. This is unlike the USSR, in which the state enforced atheism with for no logical reason, only political ones. This explains the increase of religion in the new Russian Federation.
Communism and religion have one important thing in common - dogmatism. Atheists despise this.
Jakeness21 1 year ago
Its not a comparison, its just pointing out the fact that the Soviet Government was vehemently atheistic and anti-religion.
"logical fallacies aside"
Can you even point to the conclusion of whatever argument you think I was making?
"atheists despise this"
I sure wish they despised this.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
"the fact that the Soviet Government was vehemently atheistic"
You see it as atheism vs. theism. I see it as freethinkers vs. dogmatists. In your view hitler and stalin are on my side. In my view they're clearly on yours. Stalin banned religion because it is a dogma that competed with his own political dogma. Nazism, communism, theism etc are all irrational dogmas. You all subscribe to a dogma. I don't. That's the point. You just don't get it.
pokermaster54 1 year ago
@migkillertwo You're right, I didn't read the comment you replied to and jumped to a conclusion. However, my point remains that the USSR was fanatically dogmatic.
Jakeness21 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
negative. americas got the most.
if religion consumes politics it will inevitably end with war!
we see it in the middle east all the time and we saw it during the crusades.
its time for people to relize god is more then a book and words. Our species should be above tribal diety worship by this day in age, so dont forget how little you really are migkillertwo
purpleSun6292 1 year ago
@migkillertwo To me, there is no difference between pushing a religion and endorsing a religion. And, by pushing a religion, I feel that it inhibits one's ability to decide for themselves what their religious views are. And therefore, to me, it is a violation of the part of the first amendment that guarantees freedom of religion.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@migkillertwo "Everyone still has the right to proselytize their own religion even if the state endorses one particular religion."
The state is not allowed to endorse a religion, end or story.
OccamKant 1 year ago
OMG o_O this is SOOO WRONG ... they did break the constitution.
ImmortalCRO 1 year ago
This is stupid. You handle it in a forum where people are willing to listen. You go to a place where the majority feel a specific way; YOU LOSE EVERY TIME! Dumb ass.
truvelocity 1 year ago
Although I hate religion and all belief doctrines in general, the separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which I believe was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video. Don't get me wrong, I come in peace. I hate Christianity just as much as the next guy. I'm just looking for a debate of sorts...
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 It's a nuanced issue, but I think the guy has a legitimate argument. It was an official government procedure, and they were making a blatantly Christian prayer, which could be perceived as an official endorsement of Christianity by the United States of America. There's no way you can make a truly multi-faith prayer, and even if you could, you'd still be honoring a higher power that 10-15% of your population does not believe in. I don't demand an atheist nation, just a fair one.
nemo3590 1 year ago
@nemo3590 That's true that it was an official government procedure including a Christian prayer. I'm trying to figure out where exactly the violation lies. I feel as if there must be one, but I do not know exactly what.
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 I feel like I've read something somewhere...I'm not well-versed in law. If you're not subscribed, I'd recommend going over to ProfMTH's channel. He's an atheist and an expert on law and makes videos on this sort of thing all the time. Plus, he's just generally awesome.
nemo3590 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 Did a little research and found an article that breaks it down really well:
firstamendmentcenter (dot org) /rel_liberty/establishment/index (dot aspx)
nemo3590 1 year ago
@thunder2falcon15 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" the interpretation of this portion of the first amendment guards against the government establishing a national religion AND the government giving preference to one religion over another. having an overtly christian prayer violates the second portion.
thaterp 1 year ago
@thaterp Very true. Favoring one religion over another can be considered "establishing a religion". Thank you and have a nice day :)
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
Comment removed
afterhumanity333 1 year ago
This is exactly why we fight against the monkeys that pray to space scientists that do not exist.
THIS is exactly why.
AvatarOfAvatar 1 year ago
I hope China rises to become THE dominant power. The US is dangerous and irrational in its current state.
Athaeus 1 year ago
i don't see why they had to attack them, hell they did nothing wrong other then state the truth that the council was breaking the 1st amendment
those people who attacked them should be fired and sued for damages inflicted
riotguards 1 year ago
@riotguards Those were security guards doing their job to get rid of someone disrupting the meeting. It wasn't about their personal beliefs. I think that this could have been handled in a different manner. Such as, a letter written to their local leaders and a petition signed. This act was immature and a lose lose.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity by attack them i meant by the end where they literally attacked the camera, etc not during the meeting while they took them out
we all know a written letter would never get noticed at all even if there was millions upon millions of letters being sent
riotguards 1 year ago
This was disgusting and embarrassing. Those two individuals were assaulted.
1st Amendment - 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.
bigtymerebfan 1 year ago 2
Once it all kicks off these scum who assault the public will get what is coming to them.
that's not a threat, just a blindingly obvious fact
cveitch 1 year ago
@cveitch What are you, a terrorist? Jokes Charlie :)
thunder2falcon15 1 year ago
Notice that all gods ignored the prayer? He prayed that a god would speak in a "voice" that could be "listened to" and "heard". I heard only human beings. So yet again a prayer failed miserably. I would think prayer would be stopped in this government chamber on the basis of its perfect record of failure alone.
frid9999 1 year ago
Those were some nasty and violent christian nazis.
frid9999 1 year ago 4
Sue the state of Hawaii for $100,000,000 on behalf of all atheists in the USA.
Class action suit.
farvision 1 year ago 5
@farvision Yeah, it's Hawaii! They're totally good for it!
EntinludeX 1 year ago
Nothing like the cult of Christianity infiltrating our government
PlanetoftheAtheists 1 year ago 4
"Judge Leslie Hayashi found Kahle "NOT GUILTY" and ruled that: "The Senate's [Christian] prayers violate the constitutional separation of church and state.""
Why then are prayers in politics allowed to continue? Why aren't the ones IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION being arrested?
Politicians who swear to uphold the constitution, then willfully ignore it, should be tried for treason. Period.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago 29
@TheHigherVoltage the separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution, it is from a letter which was written by Thomas Jefferson. The law states that congress may make no law respecting a religion and I do not see where that part of the Constitution has been violated in this video.
butterflie2484 1 year ago
@butterflie2484 #1 According to the Supreme Court, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment defines a separation of church and state. Verified in Reynolds v. United States (1879) and again in Everson v. Board of Education (1947).
And finds support from the US Government in Clause 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.
Not to mention, Jesus said to pray in private - not in public like the hypocrites. But hey, when have Christians given a shit what Jesus said.
TheHigherVoltage 1 year ago 2
Maybe we need to start using the 2nd amendment a little more.
ColoradoMikeyS2 1 year ago 4
Wow! A judge upholding the constitution?! This is madness I tell you, madness!
Justinfh2point0 1 year ago
lol they assaulted 1st amendment activist's in the name of jesus christ, now it's on the internet about to scour the globe. Patriots 1 jesus freaks 0. lol someone's getting coal for x-mass
hadji8583 1 year ago
Religion needs to be outlawed.
FightsWithPreachers 1 year ago 3
I hope this reaches headlines globally.
They need to lose their jobs, and the camera man and the protester need to win a lawsuit.
What a crock of shit. "We ask this in the name of Jesus"!?! Where the fuck does he get off?!?
God damn religion in politics. And FUCK everyone who screamed AMEN.
baddogma 1 year ago 12
I have no problem with them arresting and removing the guy disrupting the legislature. (The merit's of his argument, either way, aren't relevant to whether it was legally justified to remove him.)
But going after the guy with the camera? Attacking him? Outside?
I hope the cameraman presses criminal charges and sues the fuck out of them.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 1 year ago
i hope the camera man files charges because they had ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to physically attack someone filming them.
dubbleplusgood 1 year ago 4
Come on, everybody! Reupload this! Make it go viral!
CidSilverWing 1 year ago 2
@CidSilverWing Posting it on Facebook
ff621 1 year ago