Don't worry, they said. Allowing public prayer by citizens at public meetings is harmless. It's not like elected officials themselves proselityzing on public property at public meetings ... oh WAIT.
From the press release, because they're not even trying to hide it.
FRANKFORT, Ky. (Nov. 16, 2017) –
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin is
joining with West Virginia and 20 other states in filing an amicus
brief in support of North Carolina’s writ of certiorari asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to review
Rowan County v. Lund.
The
Bevin Administration along with the states of West Virginia, Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah and Wisconsin are petitioning the Court to uphold well-established
precedents protecting the freedom of prayer before public meetings. (SIC)
“Intervention
is critical to resolve the disagreement in the lower courts and to
preserve the ability of state and local legislative bodies to
accommodate the spiritual
needs of lawmakers,” states the brief. “This Court should grant review
to provide certainty for the thousands of state and local governments
that have long allowed lawmaker-led prayer in their proceedings—and
thereby continue a tradition that has become part
of the fabric of our society.”
In
recent months, lower courts have issued conflicting rulings in regard
to this topic. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit (which
covers Kentucky) and a panel
of the 4th U.S. Circuit both ruled in favor of religious liberty (SIC).
However, the full 4th Circuit later reversed its panel’s earlier
decision.
Citing two landmark Supreme Court cases—Marsh v. Chambers (1983) and
Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), the states argue that the 4th Circuit’s conclusion “is entirely unmoored from [Supreme Court] precedent.”
“Lawmaker-led
prayer is a common and important form of legislative prayer, which
connects lawmakers to a tradition dating to the time of the Framers and
allows part-time
and volunteer lawmakers to reflect the values they hold as private
citizens,” the brief notes. “This Court’s review is necessary to undo
the 4th Circuit’s erroneous decision, which would sweep away what has so
long been settled, and threaten to create new
controversy and begin anew the very divisions along religious lines
that the Establishment Claus seeks to prevent.”
A copy of the full amicus brief can be downloaded
here.
First, that's not how you spell "Clause." Second, "religious liberty" under the Establishment Clause does not mean "everybody else has to follow my religion."
In fifty years, christianist have gone from following biblical injunctions to not engage in the world outside the church to demanding that secular society adopt their freakazoid stupidity.
We ignored the warnings of history and the Founders and let them take over one step at a time, and now they're too powerful and our secular institutions too weak to stop them.
When they arrest you for mowing your lawn on a Sunday, don't say I didn't warn you.
Posts
