Posted on 04/29/2005 8:31:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a Virginia county can refuse to let a witch give the invocation at its meetings by limiting the privilege to clergy representing Judeo-Christian monotheism.
Lawyers for Wiccan practitioner Cynthia Simpson planned to file a motion this week asking the full court, based in Richmond, Va., to review the three-judge panel’s decision.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has limited government entanglement with religion in the past, the 4th Circuit’s decision relies heavily on a case in which the high court carved out separate and broader boundaries and guidelines for prayer at legislative gatherings. In that 1983 case, the court ruled there was no violation of the establishment clause when the Nebraska legislature used a Presbyterian minister over a number of years to lead its invocations. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783.
The court said in Marsh that as long as the selection of a particular minister did not stem "from any impermissible motive," it was constitutional. The Marsh opinion also strongly emphasized the long history of prayer in both Congress and the Supreme Court itself.
The 4th Circuit ruled Chesterfield County’s Board of Supervisors did not show impermissible motive in refusing to permit a pantheistic invocation by a Wiccan because its list of clergy who registered to conduct invocations covers a wide spectrum of Judeo-Christian denominations. Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, No. 04-1045 (April 14). Chesterfield County is in the Richmond suburbs.
"The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the opinion.
Simpson is a leader in the spiritual group Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca and a member of another known as the Broom Riders Association. Her lawyers argue the 4th Circuit wrongfully discriminates among religions.
"A very basic point is that governments cannot make distinctions among their citizens on the basis of religion," says Rebecca Glenberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, who argued on behalf of Simpson.
A law professor who has been involved in establishment clause litigation says the full 4th Circuit is not likely to change the ruling. And if it does, Douglas Laycock says, the Supreme Court probably would not take up a case with questions about limiting legislative prayer to Judeo-Christian faiths.
"The court has only so many chips to spend on this issue," says Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who believes there should be greater separation of church and state. "They haven’t touched legislative prayer since the Marsh case more than 20 years ago. And it would be immensely unpopular in many parts of the country to let a Wiccan give a prayer. The courts aren’t supposed to follow election returns, though they sometimes seem to do so, and they’re even getting death threats now."
The 4th Circuit opinion carefully builds on precedent that indicates a preference for more mainstream religions.
Legislative invocations "constitute ‘a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country,’ being as we are ‘a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being,’ " Wilkinson wrote, quoting the Marsh opinion, which itself was in part quoting the 1952 case Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306.
After Simpson complained about not being permitted to conduct an invocation, the board of supervisors added rabbis and a Muslim imam to its list of clergy, says Ayesha Khan, legal director for the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who also argued the case for Simpson. That "tokenism" wasn’t enough, she says.
"The Marsh case said that if the prayer giver was selected with impermissible motive, then it would be improper," she says. "If the board of supervisors didn’t mean to discriminate, then I don’t know what they did mean. The 4th Circuit gave short shrift to that point."
Simpson had told the board she would drop her complaint if the legislative body discontinued invocations.
"Often what we see is they’ll use lawsuits for censorship," says Steven W. Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Simpson case. The NLF is a Virginia Beach, Va.-based Christian public interest law firm.
Chesterfield County Attorney Steven L. Micas, citing the probability of continuing litigation in the matter, limited his comment to a prepared statement: The "invocation policy was developed shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States established the constitutional ground rules for legislative invocations. Our policy exceeds the inclusiveness standards set by the court."
Well, your doubts are ill-founded. I know two. One is my ex's next door neighbor and one is a male cousin of mine.
The cousin has since moved on to another religion but he was Wiccan for years. The ex's neighbor continues to give me great amusement at her ignorance and foolishness. I would feel sorry for her but her ignorance and foolishness are FAR outstripped by her arrogance and abrasiveness. She has NO idea that I find her that way; I AM polite, expecially to next door neighbors.
Believe it or not I have been able to form my own opinions over the years and really don't need the little mommy lecture from you or anyone else. I know it's hard to resist and "mommmies" quite naturally assume that everyone else on the planet is a stupid idiot in need of immediate, constant and continuing mommy-ing. Elementary school teachers are a breed of "mommies," bless'em....to be avoided like the plague.
Facts be known, I don't know a single fundamentalist. But I DO know innumerable "mommies." They are annoying, at best.
Yes, it's a clear example of the government showing preference among religions. If they want an invocation, let it be open to all serious applicants.
Court rulings have gone way too far to ensure that Americans are "free from religion" by forcing us to publicly acknowledge all religions, neutering the religious nature of traditional celebrations or by not allowing the public celebration of a particular religion at all.
Which one are you talking about, acknowledging that the government doesn't have the right to give special rights to certain religions, or that the government can't recognize any religion? Or do you think this is a Judeo-Christian-only country?
Yes. Wicca is a pantheist nature faith that has a God/Goddesss as it's Supreme Being. The Goddess aspect seems to be stressed more among many Wiccans (ie Mother nature). The moral code is something like "do no harm to anyone" kind of live and let live attitude. As far as a devil figure, I don't believe that Wiccans believe in one or what they have as a concept of evil. It does involve casting spells, reciting incantation lighting special candles etc etc (rituals). There is a distinction between white magic(to do good) and black magic (to specifically do harm to someone).
Lol. I know the feeling.
Of course, we have the nay-sayers and lecturers on the thread, with the predictable preachy mommy lectures.
I put them right with the elementary school teachers, to be avoided like the plague. The said nay-sayers and lecturers continue to try to fill the lacunas in their souls by diminishing others at a personal, ad hominum attack on one's religion, race, etc.
They are as pathetic as the Wiccans only FAR LESS amusing.
The problem I have with this one is that Simpson is an outsider with a lawsuit. If one of the members of the county board were a Wiccan who brought suit I would tend to be in support of it. But Simpson is a total outsider who is not invol;ved in the business of that county's board. The Circuit Court ruled rightly.
The giveaway is that there's no "Wiccan service" like you have in different Christian sects.
Worship is pretty much the same from one Methodist church to another, Lutheran, Presbyterian. (Sadly, the Episcopalians bear careful watching.)
But with Wicca, one service is WILDLY different from another. There's zero consistency.
Ergo, it's ersatz and laughable. Of which I do a lot, 'cause too many of my Rennies claim to be Wiccan or pagan.
" For Wiccans, right?"
That is correct.
Halloween must be their "Christmas."
Of course, Halloween is a Christian holy day, the eve of All Saints.
Little details like that, I suppose, just don't matter. No Halloween = no witches
This IS all from the European, Christian culture....lol, more annoying details. It's MUCH nicer to think of Wiccanism morphing quite independently from independent sources into something quite different than the standard image of witchccraft, devil worship, collaborating with forces of evil (That would be Satan.), spells to hex people (That would be to control people.), rituals of nature and all that good stuff.
Myths, fantasies....just a different kind of relative moralism than Marxism, but still a relative morality.
Queen Mab, Glenda, the good witch of the north, all very nice little bedtime stories and fodder for a fabulous Halloween costume.
Simpson is an outsider with a lawsuit. If one of the members of the county board were a Wiccan who brought suit I would tend to be in support
a ha .... a rational thought.
Some how we have decided that it's unconstitutional to excersice your own religion.
What a twist.
I agree, if the lady gets elected and it's her decision wether or not to have an invocation or who should do it ... more power to her , until then, tough.,
Quick! Get a bucket of water!
True enough.
Pope Benedict XVI's words about the "dictatorship of relativism" ring true at times like these.
Quite a few men are involved with Wicca too, including the one who started it. Often these guys are, um, "in touch with their feminine side", shall we say. Not always, though.
Other than that, right-on assessment. (More qualified to speak on this subject than is comfortable. Lots of people have done foolish, regretful things before knowing better. Let's leave it at that.)
"Worship is pretty much the same from one Methodist church to another, Lutheran, Presbyterian."
You obviuosly have never attended the various branches of the Baptist Church. You've obviously never attended religious services of some of the American Indian tribes (most of which believe in numerous Gods).
Simply because it doesn't meet YOUR vision of a religion doesn't mean it is not a legitimate religion.
I think the idea here is more that if Christians can do it, so should everybody else be able to. What on Earth do these displays of public piety have to do with religion, anyway?
Taken literally, the First Amendment forbids the federal government from creating an official federal church or interfering with official state churches (there were two at the time the BOR was adopted). It would be interesting to see the battle fought out on the grounds that the invocations were an exercise of a state religion and that the First Amendment prohibits the feds from interfering.
I graduated from Houston Baptist University. Assuming I am unaware of something because I didn't mention it is unwise.
"Yes, it's a clear example of the government showing preference among religions. If they want an invocation, let it be open to all serious applicants."
How is this creating a state religion, like King George did or even like our own states have had? How is this preventing the witch from being a witch? How is it violative of the plain meaning of the Constitution as written?
Which one are you talking about, acknowledging that the government doesn't have the right to give special rights to certain religions, or that the government can't recognize any religion? Or do you think this is a Judeo-Christian-only country?
As this is predominantly a Christian country it flows that activist court rulings will have a significant impact on public displays/celebrations of Christianity. Examples are Christmas vacation being neutered to "Winter Holiday" or the prohibition of the singing of Christmas songs in school, displays of the cross, etc. Conversely, in a predominantly Wiccan community I would expect that an offer to participate in an invocation would be extended to a Wiccan and I do not believe that such a decision by the local govenerment would be violative of the 1A.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.