Theocracy marches on: South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is throwing in with 23 other AGs with a Christian persecution complex to advocate further violation of the separation between church and state:
Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 23 states in a multi-state Amicus or “friend of the court” brief filed in the United States Supreme Court. There is no additional cost to South Dakota to act as Amici curiae counsel. The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine whether the U.S. Constitution allows for prayer during legislative session, and if so, the extent of Constitutional limitation on such prayer practice.
“The framers of our South Dakota Constitution opened their sessions with a prayer in 1883, and this practice continues today with our duly elected legislators,” said Jackley. “The U.S. Constitution is a shield to protect our rights, not to be turned into a sword through judicial interpretation to strike down our rights and freedoms” [South Dakota Attorney General's Office, press release, 2013.08.02].
The Constitution does not prohibit any citizen from praying as he or she sees fit. It does prohibit using a government office to promote religion. The Constitution does prohibit citizens speaking from their official seats in the Legislature, on the town council, wherever, to promulgate their particular faith or lack thereof.
AG Jackley seems particularly attuned to helping his Christian friends say their Christian prayers from the dais. I look forward to hearing Justice Sotomayor asking AG Jackley if he supports a teacher's right to open class each day with an exhortation to Allah or Buddha, or if he supports my right to win a seat on the Lake County Commission and open a meeting by declaring there is no God and that we need to solve our own problems.
And even if AG Jackley said, "Well, um, sure, I support any expression of religious belief from public officials at public meetings," I'd tell him he's barking up the wrong tree.
Update 09:45 CDT: You can read the complete multistate amicus curiae brief at the bottom of John Hult's Amicus Lector post here.
While AG Jacklow supports christian ritual:
"Plaintiffs, Native American Council of Tribes (NACT), Blaine Brings Plenty, and Clayton Creek, succeeded in a court trial against defendants, Douglas Weber and Dennis Kaemingk, showing that a complete ban of tobacco
in Department of Correction (DOC) facilities violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Native Am. Council of Tribes v. Weber, 897 F. Supp. 2d 828 (D.S.D. 2012). Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief in order to use tobacco during their religious ceremonies that take place at penal institutions."
http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/update-in-south-dakota-prisoner-litigation-no-stay-on-appeal-and-attorney-fees-award/
Well, Jackley's getting a lot done for all the money taxpayers spend on his AG office. Great job, Marty! Wow! I mean, double wow!! Now let's put some grit and money into defending Christmas and the Easter Bunny!
If I were chairman of a group and started the meeting with prayer, I'd expect people to either pray with me or wait until it was over.
If Cory were chairman of a group and started the meeting by saying the "first order of business is," I'd get to the business at hand.
We really need to start thinking past "either/or" and think in terms of "both/and."
Well, when you have legislators Mr. Hickey) who believe the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Pledge of Allegiance and God on our money proves a tradition of "biblical principles", what did you expect?
Troy, if you were chairman of a private group with whom I had business and you started the meeting with a prayer, I'd wait politely until you were done.
If you were chairman of a government board, agency, or somesuch with whom I had business and you opened our interaction with a prayer, I'd interrupt and say, "Excuse me, I'm not paying you to pray or promote anyone's religion."
If I were a chairman of a government entity with whom you had business and I opened our interaction with a declaration of my belief that there is no God, I'd expect you to interrupt similarly.
Troy: put up a post at DWC decrying Marty's many choices of frivolous lawsuits.
Now that the lord god Jackley has spoken he may promptly go to !?&#%$@^. He needs to reimburse the state for all of those frivolous lawsuits.
And I suppose the writers of the constitution who opened our government with prayer didn't understand how it was a violation of the separation of church and state.
Easy, Vinny! AG Jackley assures us that this particular action costs South Dakota no money.
Ryan, yes, the Founding Fathers may have erred in mingling church and state in those opening moments, just as they erred in some other things (e.g., three-fifths personhood). Christianity and the state are both made stronger by keeping them separate.
The founding fathers came to this country in part because of religious persecution, but they were wise enough not to make the same mistake in forming the new country.
Yes they were Christians but they new that there had to be religious freedom otherwise they'd be no better they the country they left.
So I strongly disagree with Rev. Hickey who on TV said this country was based in Christianity. No it wasn't.
Rep. Kristi Noem is jumping on the Greece v. Galloway theocracy bandwagon as well and imposing her religious belief on the rest of us from her official position: https://www.facebook.com/kristiforcongress/posts/10151503952967484
Another joke from the progressive left, "impose their religious beliefs on everyone." No one can every impose a religious belief on anyone in the United States, the progressive left however is attempting ,thru the courts ,to insure that religion is not allowed to exist in any public function, which is not example set by the founding fathers.
In this nation, at the present time ,you can be punished for expressing a religious view at a public event, but you will not be punished if you say that God doesn't exist.
So who is imposing who's will on a majority of Americans?
How is it in the State's interest, Mr. Thompson, for an attorney general to chase selectively partisan ghosts for political gain?
Dear interested party or Hi, Larry, not sure which one to use.
I would say that if the people of the state disagreed with what their attorney general was doing they would certainly boot him from office. Until election time in America we are free to disagree with what he does, but he has an oligation to himself and to the State to do what he believes is in the best interests of the citizens of SD. If the citizens disagree, they throw him out of office.
His selectivity is not unique to him, our President is selectively enforcing laws, Govenors and mayors are selectively ignoring federal law and at least one entire state is in fact ignoring federal law.
So, are you opposed to officals and government of either political party and at any level selectively challengeing or enforceing federal law or only a Republican?
Mr. Jackley knows red meat issues all too well, Sir; and he routinely makes contribution hay from outrageous lawsuits just like this one: just another skirmish in the War Against Christmas.
AP reporters in Montana are receiving threats because of selective partisan decisions made by GOP AGs and they are suing the EPA costing millions in federal litigation costs at their donors' behest.
You're right, of course, about whether Democrats can field a credible candidate to unseat Mr. Jackley, especially one who wants to endure the effluent that is always flung from the War Toilet.
GOP Attorneys General, not AP reporters have launched those lawsuits.
The more prayer at the beginning of a government session, the more likely participants will violate the 10 commandments. A sage observer of local life noted that it was wise to be wary of doing business with anybody who sits in the front pew of a church.
No arguement from me Mr Silken.
I would disagree by saying your examples are a change in policy not interpretation.
Speaking of interpretation, as many see the first amendment, the restriction comes in the form of not forcing people to attend or profess to a certain belief but also allowing people to do so. The notion that government and religion can't exist in the same place has only been wedged apart by obscure legal arguments. Allowing a government body to pray if they chose is not forcing anyone to follow a faith. Merely subjecting people to it hardly constitutes imposition.
Ryan, subjecting me to your rituals, making me wait at a public meeting to do public business while you perform your religious rites, is an imposition.
And how can a government body pray? Do government bodies have personhood? Does the First Amendment grant a commission or a Legislature the right to pray? I give up a fair portion of my Constitutional rights when I assume the public mantle of high school teacher. I like using this example: are you saying, Ryan, that if I have a right to offer an atheist declaration of faith at the beginning of every class period, in front of my students, and invite my students to either speak with me or sit quietly in their desks and wait for the lesson to begin after I've exercised my religious freedom on their time?