In our discussions of officially established religion in South Dakota, we generally turn immediately to the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
(Actually, the first is a complete clause; the second is only a participial phrase. But let's not get distracted....)
However, folks excited by Rapid City councilors opening public meetings with sectarian prayers and salutatorians flaunting their piety at high school graduations should also take a look at the South Dakota Constitution, which offers a much more detailed blueprint for the wall of separation between church and state:
The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed. No person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or position on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse licentiousness, the invasion of the rights of others, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state.
No person shall be compelled to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of any sectarian or religious society or institution [South Dakota Constitution, Article 6, Section 3, 1889].
That absolute first line could give Rapid City councilor Ron Sasso a boost: if his right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed, that would seem to include praying at the public dais.
But don't be fooled; no right is absolute. Councilman Sasso can worship, but not anywhere, any time, and any way he wants during a city council meeting. If the council is debating parking restrictions and a councilman breaks into the Hallelujah chorus or incantations to Allah, the mayor can rule his comments out of order as surely as the mayor could stifle discussion about any other item not on the agenda. Even Robert's Rules of Order can trump the freedom of religion.
The right to worship is further tempered by the second paragraph of South Dakota's church-state section. A city commission that insists on prayers of its Christian members' preferred flavor creates a situation where taxpayers of all consciences are paying for a room, a microphone, and recordings of elected officials praying. Taxpayers are thus supporting the dissemination of preferred religious messages. Until city commissions and other elected bodies start inviting atheists to deliver their invocations (hey, Mayor Kooiker! I'm available!), that preferential support runs afoul of the South Dakota Constitution.
The South Dakota Constitution clarifies the wall of separation created by the century-older First Amendment. Religionists and non-religionists alike benefit from that clear separation.
Related: In 1874, Arkansas Democrats rewrote their state Constitution as a reaction against the Reconstruction document imposed upon them. They included a clause forbidding atheists from holding public office. Just 15 years later, South Dakota Republicans drafting our state Constitution made clear South Dakota would allow no such nonsense denying anyone rights, privileges, or positions due to religious opinions. See? South Dakota Republicans have progressive roots after all!
What is wrong with asking for guidance from a being more power and knowledge then ourselves?
Oh never mind, I get it, there is no such thing, we, or rather you, are all knowing and all powerful.
Most prayers are about the same, they ask for guidance, regardless of the faith. There is no harm there. even if you ask for help for a non-being, just the act show how humble we are or should be. When those prayers or faith spill into legislation, then we have problem
BTW it would be be good for you to stand up and ask for guidance for the city council from... yourself, or maybe the people of Rapid City.
Why is so called prayer necessary at the beginning and ending of meetings, graduations, etc.? If people want to pray at these times they should do it silently and not have somebody at the podium leading it. I don't consider myself an atheist, but I also don't believe that somebody holy dictated the Bible. Too many of the Christians that I know have a tendency to pick and choose the verses that they want to believe. What really irritates me is when an organization pays somebody to lead the prayer, like the chaplains in the US Congress. Anybody can sit in their seat at a meeting and think to themselves "oh God, let this meeting go the way I want it to." That would still be a prayer. The Bible also tells us to pray in private, not in public.
First, the people that would use a government meeting to pretend they are pious aren't really Christians. They are the people Jesus warns us against. I don't know what sort of demon religion they are attempting to demonstrate by using government to try to look pious, but it is one that Jesus would reject.
Second, the people who put together South Dakota's founding documents were real Christians, as opposed to the pretend ones who sit in the Rapid City Common Council chambers. They wanted to guard religion against government and government against religion, because when you unite the two, it results in bad government and bad religion.
You're right Joan - the bible itself, and it's shining star - Christ - tell us we are not to make a public display of our prayers.
MC, it's not about me or the arrogance you would like to impute to me. The arrogance afoot comes from public officials misusing their position of authority to prove their piety and promote their specific beliefs in contradiction to the dictates of (1) our state constitution and (2, as Joan and Donald point out) their own religion. Reread this quote from Pastor Shel Boese (available via my last link above, but lost from Shel's website):
Christianity works best when it stands in opposition to, in tension with, the worldly powers. (Oddly, so do I....)
Donald expresses my sentiments exactly.
I always thought it was interesting that the freedom of religion doesn't usually include rastafarian's and polygamist's.
More importantly, does it include Pastafarians?