Jackley open to conversation on putting Ten Commandments in classrooms
Joins legal brief defending Louisiana law on defending display in public schools
Attorney General Marty Jackley is considering supporting legislation to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in South Dakota’s public grade schools.
Jackley’s office confirmed Monday morning to The Dakota Scout that his decision to join a legal brief defending a Louisiana law requiring K-12 public schools and universities to display the biblical precepts has prompted him to reflect on similar proposals emerging in Pierre.
“He supports the concept, but hasn’t seen specifics on the bill yet,” a spokesman for Jackley said.
RELATED: Public scandal molds attorney general's priorities for South Dakota Legislature
Jackley announced in a press release that he, along with 17 other attorneys general from across the country, is backing Louisiana’s efforts to implement the law, which a federal district court had previously blocked.
“The Ten Commandments already are displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court and other public buildings,” Jackley stated. “The Ten Commandments have influenced the creation of our nation and our rule of law.”
Though several federal and state facilities across the country display the Biblical laws, Louisiana was the first state in the union to make such a requirement of its public education facilities.
But if incoming Rep.-elect John Carley has his way, South Dakota would become the second.
His Senate Bill 51 would require local school districts to put a poster or document that is at least 8 inches by 14 inches with the listing in “large, easily readable font” into each classroom.
Though state law currently allows the Commandments — which include guidances urging people not to murder and steal, among other offenses — to be displayed in classrooms at the choice of teachers, Carley believes their fundamental role in the founding of the country should mean they becomes mandatory for students to see.
“This bill is modeled after Louisiana’s,” Carley said of his legislation. “Because of this, a number of states are now considering it… It has an amazing historical signifigance for the founding of America. It is an amazing way to display this along with other founding documents in our schools.”
He noted that the Ten Commandments were previously displayed in public schools, and that he appreciates Jackley’s initial support.
“I am thankful that he weighed in on the lawsuit. I am glad he brings that same level of enthusiasm encouragement to our state,” Carley continued. “He certainly recognizes the impact of this.”
Carley’s legislation, which currently boasts 14 additional co-sponsors, will see opposition from at least one organization in the state. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that the measure “blatantly violates” the promise of the first amendment.
“Students already have the right to engage in religious exercise and expression at school under current law,” said Samantha Chapman, the ACLU of South Dakota’s advocacy manager. “America is not a theocracy and South Dakota’s public schools shouldn’t be used to religiously indoctrinate or convert students.”
NEWS: Labor secretary's kidney transplant inspires organ donation advocacy
An absolutely ridiculous idea and an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars to consider and to have to defend. Are these same folks willing to have documents posted about every other religion including statements by atheists and agnostics? The walls will be totally covered and then the issue will be which one gets the best location on the wall. There will be no wall space available for any other business. Plus, we wouldn't want to slight the devil worshipers.
(The sponsor) believes their fundamental role in the founding of the country should mean they (i.e., the Ten Commandments) becomes (sic) mandatory for students to see. (parenthetical material supplied).
The fact that some of the Founding Fathers were no doubt religious men and even Christian or that they themselves believed in the 10 commandments does not mean they wanted them to be “mandatory” or enacted into law so as to traumatize and “chill” the freedom of expression of the non-christian children. In fact, historically, the Fathers went to considerable lengths to achieve the contrary.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
- Letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.
Separation of church and state (the Founders’ only and primary directive concerning religions) is deeply engrained in the US Constitution; the 10 commandments and other Jewish and Christian scriptures are not even mentioned.
I am a Christian. I do not believe it is Christian to make the Christian religion mandatory for others or to diminish or to refuse to tolerate their beliefs or to display the kind of sinful hubris that conveys that my faith contains more truth than theirs. It might for me, but it doesn’t necessarily for others.
I do notice that the sponsor said: "It is an amazing way to display this along with other founding documents in our schools”. (Italics supplied for emphasis). I do not agree with the inaccurate premise that the 10 commandments are a "Founding Document". If the course material being studied is comparative religions, then the 10 commandments should be included in the course material. If the course is American Colonial History or American Founding Documents, then not.
The intent of this bill is to “indoctrinate” children. It is not to teach them a full and accurate picture of the American melting pot. It is wrong to do this (i.e., making a religious doctrine mandatory and thus limiting their religious freedom)to our children even though the bill's sponsors and adherents feel like their religion requires them to do it.
We have plenty of laws mandating moral and legal requirements in our society. They thoroughly govern perjury, theft, murder and other recognized societal offenses. If not to (unconstitutionally) “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” why are the sponsors including the rest of the ten commandments concerning worshipping no God before me, respecting the sabbath, not taking the lord’s name in vain, etc. if not to come in the back door to pass a law “respecting an establishment of religion? This might be a well-intended law, but in substance it is a paper thinly veiled establishment of religion.