Ra bless Texas!

I'd like to say 'Hail Satan!' just to piss off some Christians, but of course I don't believe he or Hell exists, either.

Texas atheists, breathe a sigh of relief. While it may not be easy for you to be elected to public office here if you fly the banner of secularism, the state Constitution won’t bar you from running.

The issue of religious preference and who is eligible to run for Texas political office was exhumed – again – this week after Austin City Council candidate Laura Pressley distributed a mailer claiming her opponent Gregorio “Greg” Casar was an atheist and therefore legally barred from holding public office in the Lone Star State.

“As someone who’s on record saying he doesn’t believe in God, Casar can’t legally represent North Austin’s District 4 on the City Council,” the Austin American Statesman reported Dec. 1.

Yep, that's what has always discouraged me from running, that's for sure.

Pressley referenced Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution, which states, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” (italics Lauren McGaughey's)

While the article indeed remains on the books in Texas – and several Southern states – it’s been proven time and time again to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“There’s no question is that it is void and unenforceable,” said Keith Werhan, the Ashton Phelps Chair of Constitutional Law at the Tulane University School of Law in New Orleans. University of Houston Professor Brandon Rottinghaus said such provisions provided a “post-reconstruction approach to making sure religion still had a place” in former Confederate states.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution bars such religious litmus for those running for federal office, and the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated such provisions in state Constitutions in 1961. In Texas, the last time the article was discussed in the 1980s between Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a voter, and then-Attorney General Jim Maddox, according to Texas Monthly.

In a federal court agreement, Maddox said the article “is void and of no further effect in that it is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Nice to be reminded that if this blogging thing doesn't work out that I can always fall back on a career of public service.

Hail Satan anyway!

Eric Garner joins Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Oscar Grant...

So it seems that even when there is videotape evidence, and even when a large black man cannot be seen as a threat to a police officer because he is on the ground in a chokehold, the grand jury still isn't going to indict the police officer for killing him.

The decision in Staten Island not to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo threatened to add to the tensions that have simmered in the city since the July 17 death of Eric Garner -- a case that sparked outrage and drew comparisons to the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Jonathan Moore, an attorney for Garner's family, said he was told of the grand jury's decision.

"I am actually astonished based on the evidence of the video tape, and the medical examiner, that this grand jury at this time wouldn't indict for anything, is really just astonishing," Moore said.

'Astonishing' might not be the first word on the minds of many others this afternoon.

The grand jury could have considered a range of charges, from murder to a lesser offense such as reckless endangerment.

A video shot by an onlooker and widely viewed on the Internet showed the 43-year-old Garner telling a group of police officers to leave him alone as they tried to arrest him.

Pantaleo responded by wrapping his arm around Garner's neck in an apparent chokehold, which is banned under NYPD policy. The heavyset Garner, who had asthma, was heard repeatedly gasping, "I can't breathe!" A second video surfaced that showed police and paramedics appearing to make no effort to revive Garner while he lay motionless on the ground. He later died at a hospital.

The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide and found that a chokehold contributed to it. A forensic pathologist hired by Garner's family, Dr. Michael Baden, agreed with those findings, saying there was hemorrhaging on Garner's neck indicative of neck compressions.

As usual, the cops are making excuses.

Police union officials and Pantaleo's lawyer have argued that the officer used a takedown move taught by the police department, not a chokehold, because he was resisting arrest and that Garner's poor health was the main reason he died.

While details on the grand jurors were not disclosed, Staten Island is the most politically conservative of the city's five boroughs and home to many police and firefighters. The panel began hearing evidence in late September, including the video, autopsy results and testimony by Pantaleo.

Same old story, same old result.  A black man is dead under questionable circumstances at the hands of a white cop, and the mostly white criminal justice system failed the black man's family once more.

One more straw on the camel's back.  How many more can it take?

Black lives matter. #EricGarner pic.twitter.com/daGipq6Pbl

— Race Forward (@RaceForward) December 3, 2014

Update: More reactions.