We read:
"A group of nine Hawaii senators held hands, bowed their heads and sought God's blessing Wednesday, signaling that they'll still pray despite a vote last week to abandon official invocations.
Fears of court challenges compelled the state Senate to end prayers, making it the first legislative body in the nation to do so.
The informal prayer Wednesday took place in the Senate chamber before the daily lawmaking session, convened in such a way so as not to contradict the decision to remove invocations from Senate business.
The 25-member Senate changed its rules in a unanimous voice vote last Thursday to end prayers after the American Civil Liberties Union sent lawmakers a letter complaining that the invocations often referenced Jesus Christ, contravening the separation of church and state.
"It's nice to start off the day with a prayer because we need all the help we can get," said Sen. Mike Gabbard, D-Kalaeloa-Makakilo.
The ACLU of Hawaii declined to comment Wednesday. The ACLU previously has said the Senate's action to remove prayers helps create an environment where everyone feels welcome regardless of spiritual beliefs.
Senate President Shan Tsutsui, who did not participate in the prayer session, said he condoned their independent movement to keep prayer alive. "It's a matter of free speech," said Tsutsui, D-Wailuku-Kahului. "We do encourage members, at their own will and desire, to go ahead and engage in prayer."
Source
13 comments:
A voluntary prayer by those who truly want to pray is far better than a ritual prayer that may have little or no meaning to many or even most who participate anyway.
As long as the ACLU doesn't try to push this voluntary effort out as well, I'm going to consider this an improvement over the previous situation.
Voluntary prayer seems to flow directly from our Constitutional right of freedom of expression. People are not compelled to pray, so there is no infringement.
-sig
I think that this news item has no place in Tongue Tied. If it could be established that anyone was being prevented from setting up a religious service somewhere to which people would be coming for the express purpose of participating in that service, I would agree absolutely that the issue would be one of free speech and freedom to engage in religious activity.
But the problem occurs when people enter a room for some other purpose that is unrelated to any specific religious practice and have the prayer thrust upon them. The argument that they do not have to participate is dishonest. They are presumed to be part of the prayer. What must they do, stand up? Remain seated? Walk out? Refrain from conversation out of "respect" for those who have displayed no respect?
I run religious services myself, once every week for a group of about 35 people but I wouldn't dream of imposing my service on anyone who had not entered the room for the very purpose of participating.
That is why the ACLU is 100% correct in this matter and I am disappointed that this issue has now appeared twice in Tongue Tied.
I hope they continue with their prayers and the ACLU be damned
Jonathan,
I gather you believe that "freedom of religion" means only in a specified place and time? When you hold your "religious services," do you encourage the participants to only display and live their lives according to the tenants of their beliefs in that setting?
I bet you are a hoot at a ballgame where a moment of silence is held for a fallen soldier or a person that has passed away. Do you think that moment is contrary to the reason you came to the ballfield / arena and therefore it is "imposing" on you?
The argument that a person does not have to participate is not dishonest, Jonathan. The argument that anyone is FORCED to participate is dishonest and shallow. Why is it that you think that standing or sitting quietly is such a burden on you or anyone? If you don't want to participate, aren't you free to leave the area? Is someone chaining you to your chair?
Early in this country's history, the Senate and House had ordered, chaplain led prayers. These prayers were offered in the presence of the men that had discussed, debated and written the Constitution which people are now trying to use to say that a praying in a legislative body is illegal.
The Constitution protects a person's right to practice their religion. A right can only be suspended if there is a compelling harm to the rights of others.
Please take the time to actually read the Constitution and its amendments and you will find that there is no right to "not be offended by others exercising their rights."
To Anonymous 7:44 AM.
I'll answer your question. I encourage people to mind their own business; to follow the principles and customs of our creed without having the arrogance to believe that they have a mandate to impose their views on other people.
How DARE you suggest that someone who has come into a room for a purpose that has nothing to do with religious practice should be informed that he or she as the "right" to leave?
The people who should leave the room are those who would hijack the gathering to impose their own particular religious practice on other people.
Hey anonymous. I believe that it is precisely because there are arrogant people like you that we need the ACLU.
Jonathan Lewin
Is that a "religious service" you run Jonathan? Sounds more like you've got yourself a little cult going and probably making a few bucks to boot. Good for you!
When will someone finally take the aclu to court and force them to show just where in the Constitution it states the Church and the State must be seperate. If, as is the case, it's nothing more than another liberal invention, like the right to have an abortion, then let liberals be honest enough to come out and say so, even though honesty goes against everything they believe in.
This is my last post on the subject. I think that the quote marks used by Anonymous 7:44 and by K. Templar on the words, religious service, speak volumes about the state of mind of these gentlemen.
Their message is loud and clear. The quote marks say that any religous service that may not be an exact part of the community represented by these two gentlemen is, as far as they are concerned, not a religious service at all. Their attitude is exactly why such people have to be prevented from hijacking gatherings that represent ALL people from ALL communities and that do not have their primary focus on religious practice.
Now it's my turn to use quote marks. K. Templar seems to have forgotten that one of the Ten Commandments says: Thou shalt not slander.
K. Templar has the utter gall to write:
"Sounds more like you've got yourself a little cult going and probably making a few bucks to boot. Good for you!"
Here is a slur upon my person without a shred of evidence. How dare you speak like this about someone you have never met! What basis do you have for such a slanderous statement? The fact that you can speak like this certainly does speak volumes about the kind of person you are.
I refuse to put my community on trial by describing the detail of my weekly Sabbath services but I will say that I make no money at all out of it and that it is provided mainly for elderly people who live in a nursing home or in an assisted living complex. These are people, many of whom are in wheel chairs and all of whom are too infirm to travel to other places of worship.
K. Templar, you owe me an apology.
That is all I have to say about this subject. You people make me feel positively ill.
Dr. Jonathan Lewin
Here's the bit I found interesting...
"helps create an environment where everyone feels welcome regardless of spiritual beliefs."
Unfortunately the actual message it sends when people are compelled to end the practice of prayer is that the environment is now one which is actually hostile towards spiritual beliefs.
No matter what the intent (and I do not doubt they are good) the impression created is not what is intended.
Jonathan,
Crawl back under your rock. The ACLU is the lowest form of life in the US as observed by all around the world and you want to ride on their coat tails you hypocrite.
Why do you run a religious service? Because it is traditional? Because it gives peace of mind to those who attend?
Why have all levels of government held prayer services (of various religions)? Because it is traditional. I am sure they would even accomodate an atheist giving some sort of blessing if they were asked.
But no. You and the ACLU have decided that all religions and the non religious must be individualy separated lest somebody be offended.
Well what about the fact that you and the ACLU have offended more people than you have appeased?
As to leaving during prayer if you are offended by the prayer then be fashionably late rather than shove it is someones face.
For someone with a religous background you seem to have little tolerance to others.
wtf
OFF TOPIC: Great story, Libtard congressman of Virginia, Jim Moran, blames teh democratic losses in 2010 on racism. Even his own (my own too) state of Virginia. Ironic that "racist" Virginia elected Obama in 2008, and in 1990 was the first US State to elect a black governor. This is the same guy who blamed the Jews for the iraq war.
http://wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=2251305
Most people either don't realize or they forget that the United States Constitution was signed, "in the year of our Lord...." And just who do you think "Lord" refers to? It is absolutely and undeniably Jesus Christ. That alone should speak volumes, but too many are so willing and quick to dismiss that fact.
-sig
"Year of Our Lord" was a conventional expression at the time, whether or not the author was christian in practice. Do all who exclaim "Good Lord" or "Good God" believe they are actually calling on God?
Post a Comment