Posted on 08/09/2005 6:45:50 PM PDT by Crackingham
The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision that allows the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to exclude a local witch from leading the prayer at open meetings.
The ACLU of Virginia yesterday filed its petition with the court seeking to reverse a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, said ACLU attorney Rebecca K. Glenberg.
"Our position is that the 4th Circuit did something really extreme in its decision," she said. "It held that it was acceptable for a government body to treat people differently because of religion."
Cynthia Simpson, a witch who lives in Chesterfield, requested in 2002 to be placed on a list of religious leaders invited to deliver the invocation at meetings of the Board of Supervisors. So far, her request has been denied.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
"I'm a Wiccan" but I'm a credit to the Conservative Cause.
"English Law is based on Saxon Law" but Saxon law is demonstrably influenced by Christianity.
"I can't spell even the simplest words" but people are supposed to believe I can posit a cogent argument.
"The Board should be forced to attend the Wiccan invocation" but I'm a tolerant multiculturalist.
"People who subscribe to Christianity are 'suckers'" but I believe in fairies and goblins and wood nymphs.
You know, there are medications available to help you overcome this pathological cognitive disconnect, but they're not the kind you self-prescribe.
And they found a darn good one.
Whose idea of "above"? Yours?
I highly recommend Peter Kreeft's "Handbook of Christian Apologetics."
I've read so much Christian apologetics, I think I'll be sick if I read yet another. The mental gymnastics amazes me.
> "I'm a Wiccan" but I'm a credit to the Conservative Cause.
Do you have the slightest notion what you're talking about?
> "English Law is based on Saxon Law" but Saxon law is demonstrably influenced by Christianity.
What's astonishing is that you see this as a conflict.
> I believe in fairies and goblins and wood nymphs.
I don't doubt that you do.
What "train of thought" is that? And how is it that gullible men cannot just as easily be led astray by the godless and the amoral? In fact, since there is no transcendent authority for the latter, there is no standard against which to judge the appropriateness of the intended behavior. So I volunteer that it is far EASIER to subvert godless men than those who profess an established religion. To the degree they actually adhere to Christianity's tenets instead of merely paying them lip service, it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to be led astray.
The Holocaust began with "Germany is a Christian nation" after Hitler wrote Mein Kampf.
The Holocaust began in the mind of Adolph Hitler because he was demented. There was little or no reason for his hatred of the Jews. Its roots lie within a psychosis that history has never been able to explain fully. To attribute it to his Catholic upbringing is not only a stretch, it's a self-enforcing speculation. Great parlor room conversation starter (or ender), but hardly definitive.
The Jews were persecuted under the Nazis as a RACE, not as a religion. Hitler, being a Catholic in largely Protestant Germany, understood that different Christian sects were little threat to the Reich. But the JEWS ... they were another matter entirely. They -- and the communists -- were responsible for all Germany's ills, and for crushing what should have been the most glorious race of superhumans on earth.
None of that neo-paganist drivel has the slightest relation to Christianity.
Nazism was supported by the majority of German Christians and German Christian leaders.
Of course. But not for RELIGIOUS reasons. While many deluded Germans might have seen Hitler as some sort of mad Messiah, it certainly wasn't in any Christian sense.
You're intentionally confusing cause and effect here. Since most Germans professed to be Christians, if most Germans supported Hitler (for whatever reason) then it stands to reason that most German Christians supported Hitler. Few protested his ascension on religious grounds, that is true. But few protested his ascension on any other grounds either. His appeal lay not in his religious fervor -- there was none -- but in his xenophobia, his charisma, and ultimately, in his ability to focus a wronged nation's hatred on an historic scapegoat.
Well lj, if these Folks are so needy of "refreshment" at work, then perhaps working in the church of their choice might be a better calling, than City Government.
As such, it's a Board of Supervisors meeting, not a Sunday School. If you want to limit the opening prayers to one Religion, then eliminate the opening prayersall together, and let those that need "refreshment" get it on their own time...
Correction:
The government has no rights - none. The government has powers, that are granted by the people; powers that we, the people, can modify at any time.
Are their writings true or false, or is this just your opinion? If it's just your opinion, why should I be interested in it?
Once again, I need to explain the simplest things ...
If you read my post, you'll notice that the first clause is bracketed by two small vertical lines in the superscript. Those are known as "quote marks." [just like around "quote marks"] Those are a writer's way of indicating that the words being written are not his own, but were penned by someone else. In this case, the context would indicate that that someone else is YOU.
Your attempt to refute my observations made as little sense as your flimsy defense of the Wacky "priestess" [there's those quote marks again!]. You insist that this country can't be Christian since its laws are founded on Saxon tradition, which I demonstrated could trace much of its root back to Charlemagne. That effectively defeated your whole contention, not to mention your absurd insistence that our entire culture is somehow defined by our laws alone.
I suspect you're one of those people who argue simply for the sake of arguing, since this exchange has long since ceased to yield any useful progress. I feel like I'm talking to a stump.
Back to the original point of the thread: if the Board of Supervisors wants to be fair, they must allow the ... alternative ... "cleric" [!] to invoke the meeting. However, no regulation or tradition requires that they attend her when she does.
Put the bottle down and try to stay focused on the subject, okay? If you're having trouble with the big words, maybe the ward nurse can read them to you.
And our currency is a medium of monetary exchange, not the Book of Common Prayer. Yet it bears religious references that reflect the values on which this country was founded, and from which it seeks continued guidance.
If you want to limit the opening prayers to one Religion ...
IF. Reread my initial post. I never said the invocation should be limited to one religion. In fact, I said that to be fair, the loon should be given equal time. I simply said that nobody could be required to LISTEN to her. And nobody has made any cogent attempt to argue that point.
The twists of logic required to support their positions are unsupportable, and indeed painful to read. I generally regard any position that requires such convoluted logic to be false.
You believe because you believe. That's fine. Faith is faith, and is important to many. Your faith should be able to stand on its own. But don't try mixing faith with logic, it just doesn't work.
Jack, I understand your original intent, however, that doesn't change the point. It's a Board of Supervisors meeting, if these people need prayer before they start work, maybe a job working for the Church of their choice would be a better alternative.
Add to that their apparent inability to include various Religions is causing the Board of Supervisors to be distracted from the job they are there for in the first place, then let these Folks take their Religion outside, and get on about the work they are supposed to be doing...
> You insist that this country can't be Christian since its laws are founded on Saxon tradition,
Amazingly enough, that's quite a bit unlike the arguement I actually made. But hey... go ahead and believe your wacky lies.
> However, no regulation or tradition requires that they attend her when she does.
I suppose common courtesy is irrelevant in your world.
> If you're having trouble with the big words, maybe the ward nurse can read them to you.
Go back to DU, troll.
There's a funny bit to that. Chase did this after receiving a letter from a preacher asking for it. In the letter, one of the main reasons for putting IGWT on coins was the fear that some later society might dig up our remains, and he was afraid that we'd be seen as godless heathens.
The funny part is that whenever we dig up an old society, we always think "What funny gods they worshipped, how quaint." A future society will probably think the same of us. I say save us the future embarrassment and get it off the money.
No, it means that the point you're trying to make is different than the point I'm trying to make. I believe you're trying to say that religion -- ANY religion -- has no place in the Board of Supervisors' meeting. That is certainly a debatable issue, but it's not the issue here. This thread originated because the Board was denying a moonbat her "right" to preside over the invocation. I said that she should be allowed the same privilege others are, but that the Board was well within its rights to turn its collective back on her by way of protest. I stand by that assertion.
... let these Folks take their Religion outside, and get on about the work they are supposed to be doing...
This invocation has never been a "distraction" up till now. In fact, it is arguable that it inspired them to do better work. The only reason it's become an issue is because some daft attention whore is trying to glom her 15 minutes of infamy. I say let her. The two minutes she wastes won't cost any more than the two minutes spent on a real invocation, so the Board won't accomplish any less (except to the degree they forego Divine guidance to accommodate this nut). However, they do make a number of statements:
1) The Board is open to ALL religions (how remarkably multicultural of us);
2) The Board refuses to grant legitimacy to idiot latter-day cults that masquerade as religions, even though the law must.
3) You cannot rule a people who refuse to be ruled.
That is important work too.
In a world where courtesy is important, one doesn't stand outside someone else's party and demand to be let in. It may just be the meds talking, but you seem to have trouble fixing a single standard. Maybe a review of your prescriptions is in order ...
Go back to DU, troll.
The Wiccan lobby over there is not nearly as vocal.
> In a world where courtesy is important, one doesn't stand outside someone else's party and demand to be let in.
And one does not set up rulesof courtesy for some and other rules for others. If you want your little cult to be able to do their little chant prior to doing the taxpayers business, then you should have the courtesy to stand by for a few seconds while someone else does theirs. But as it is, you are doing the Muslim fundamentalist thing of demanding special recognition for yourself.
> Maybe a review of your prescriptions is in order ...
This really *is* the limit of your ability to rationalize, isn't it. How sad.
I would suggest that it would be far less "embarrassing" to be seen as a Christian nation (Christianity being the power that defined Western civilization) than to be seen as Wiccans. Or as godless heathens, for that matter.
In any case, I don't know how advisable it is to make decisions for today based on the potential for "embarrassment" at some undetermined future date. I would further suggest that our cultural icons (e.g., our coinage) should rightfully reflect the values of the people they serve. And while I certainly appreciate the sensitivities of the vast Wiccan congregation in America, I believe our values are more accurately reflected in the phrase "In God We Trust" than "Kumbaya".
That's civil (codified or statutory) law, not common (traditional) law. Our system is based on common law, started by the non-Christian Saxons before the Christian conquest of England. Other countries use civil law, usually based on Roman Law. Louisiana also uses civil law (the French lineage probably). Other codified law also predates the 10 Commandments by about a thousand years (Urukagina's Code), and the 10 Commandments pretty much mirrors earlier law.
The problem with your assessment is that is just that - your personal opinion. And it apparently is the opinion of the ACLU, and we know what their purposes and goals are.
Your opinion is not based on tradition, history, the constitution, or, apparently, the will of this particular County Board. So why should it carry any weight?
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.