Tuesday, 09 June 2009
-
Praying in the Capitol: It Shouldn't Be a Crime
From 1997.
The United States Capitol Building is federal property. Parts of that property are open for public touring, including the main floor under the Rotunda, the old House and Senate Chambers, the old Supreme Court chambers, Statuary Hall, and other historically significant locations. No pass or permit is required for visiting the Capitol and touring its open areas. In addition to the Capitol Guides Service tour (the official tour), the Capitol is open for privately conducted tours, individual self-guided tours, and tours led by congressional staffers (typically for selected constituents).
Displays in the building are self-explanatory or have written information to assist in interpretation of them. Nonetheless, those who conduct tours are permitted to interpret the exhibits for willing listeners. The Capitol Tour Guide Service provides a brochure to assist those conducting personal or privately-guided tours.
Pierre Bynum, a pastor from nearby Waldorf, Maryland, led a tour in the United States Capitol Building on November 3, 1996, the Sunday before the general election. The tour participants included the pastor and members of The Shepherd's Gate, a church in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. During the tour, as Pastor Bynum led the group from exhibit to exhibit, he offered inspirational and devotional commentary, interpreting and explaining various exhibits. As appropriate and related to the exhibits and the tour, Pastor Bynum led the group in quiet prayer and reflection based on the inspirational and devotional commentaries he offered. This approach to touring the Capitol is intended to increase the effectiveness of those who follow the command of scripture to pray for those in authority. It is also intended to preserve the truth about various persons and events in history because of the significance of faith in their lives or their occurrence.
For example, when viewing the cornerstone set in place by George Washington, Pastor Bynum offered devotional thoughts about the faith of George Washington and its mixture with the cult of Masonry. Pastor Bynum then led the tour participants in quiet prayers of thanksgiving to God for the role played by Washington, and in quiet prayers for God to protect this nation from the consequences of the unholy mixture of Christianity with occult groups and practices.
As the group proceeded through the building, they were observed by United States Capitol Police officers. Eventually, one of the officers confronted the group. The officer asked whether the group was praying in the Capitol. Pastor Bynum confirmed that they were. The officer then told the group that praying in the Capitol was prohibited. Pastor Bynum inquired what law prohibited prayer, and the officer explained that demonstrations were prohibited in the Capitol and that the United States Capitol Police consider prayer to be a form of prohibited demonstration. Pastor Bynum explained that they were not demonstrating, but touring the Capitol. The officer responded that prayer was a form of demonstration and that all demonstrations in the Capitol were prohibited. The officer then stated that the prayer activities had to stop immediately or the group would be arrested for demonstrating in the Capitol.
Pastor Bynum considered canceling the tour. Ultimately he continued the tour while evading police enforcement of the ban on prayer. Pastor Bynum directed those participating in the tour not to fold their hands in prayer, not to bow their heads in prayer and not to close their eyes in prayer. In other words, he advised the tourists to avoid all the familiar affectations that reflect an attitude of prayer. In this way, the tour was able to be completed without arrest. But the tour was completed only because Pastor Bynum and the participants evaded police observation.
The odd thing about this incident is that the police authorities involved, the United States Capitol Police and Board, are governed by appointees of the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Now those same leaders, Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular are announcing their support, long-overdue, for an amendment to protect the right of religious expression in public places. What remains to be seen is whether those faithful folks, adversely affected by the prayer ban now being enforced by the Republican-dominated police force, can sensibly trust that Republican Congress to pass the Amendment out to the States for ratification.
-
recommend
- recs 2
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to truthserum's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in truthserum's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (12)
I guess no one ever heard of the 1st amendment.
Judge Rules For Prayers At Capitol
By this judicial logic of free speech, then, it should be just as OK for a group of Muslims with beards like ZZ Top to pray in the capitol. I'd like to see how Gingrich and the others would like to be responsible for that.
Religion as a demonstration? Or course! Everything we do is a demonstration of who we are and what we believe.
I can think of a lot of pieces of the Capitol that would have to be removed under that logic since they "demonstrate" the religious and political heritage of this nation.
@Dburr042 - you bet.
@CelestialTeapot - Thanks for posting the link to that WaPo article. I'd forgotten about being quoted there. I am actually re-posting on Xanga some older pieces that will go the way of all flesh when Yahoo takes its Geocities site down this summer. My next re-post will be the report of the judge's decision. I plan to take less time getting to that than good ol' Judge Friedman took getting to the decisionl. He winced when he saw me in the courthouse one time, and said, every time I see you in the courthouse I feel guilty about how long it's taking me to get the decision out. I think it was over a year.
@desotoinquest - Fact is, such equality of rights is precisely what the Constitution guarantees. As an attorney that has practiced First Amendment law for 22 years, this has been our constant struggle and goal, an equal playing field for speech expressing religious ideas and values, or containing religious content.
@truthserum - Indeed it does. My point was that the ruling was on free speech (as in the Schenck and Brandenburg rulings, for example) rather than something else where the wall-of-separation doctrine might be invoked. And please don't hesitate to comment on things like this again, since some of us are actually interested in jurisprudential reasoning and not just throwing around phrases we've heard on TV. I was referring to bearded Muslims precisely because people as a rule do not think such issues through and i get tired of that idiot Gingrich and his posturing.
@desotoinquest - Well, having worked on one of the Schenck cases decided by the Supreme Court, are you referring to the one arising in the context of abortion protests?
@truthserum - not at all, just to the limits of free speech in general and the clear-and-present test in Schenck, later modified in several rulings i can't remember.
Interesting! Never heard anything like that before.
@CelestialTeapot - Thanks for the link.