Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court asked to hear witch case
Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | 8/9/05

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 4thcircuit; aclu; fourthcircuit; lawsuit; prayer; vaaclu; wiccan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-322 next last
To: Lord_Baltar

I personally think prayers in government meetings are stupid.

The town council should be focusing on fixing potholes, not lawsuits about who gets to say a prayer before a meeting.


81 posted on 08/10/2005 10:10:12 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Its truth. "Validity" is proportionate to truth.

Whose truth? Yours?

82 posted on 08/10/2005 10:20:55 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I know the Fathers were religious, and had laws about religion. But they did not discriminate against those of other religions.

Also, Jefferson wrote in numerous letters that he believed the right to more forcefully indoctrinate citizens into a religion was the right of individual states.

I'd like to see those. Many of his letters are about the dangers of religion getting power in government.

83 posted on 08/10/2005 10:26:44 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
We're a Christain nation. Get over it

Yes and we've seen the loss of liberty Christianity has given us. That is very difficult to "get over".
.
84 posted on 08/10/2005 10:48:14 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
In fact, during the debate on the First Amendment, Congress specifically rejected amendment changes that would have specifically demanded neutrality on religion

Benjamin Franklin suggested Congress open with a prayer. His suggestion was unanimously rejected and Congress demanded separation of Church and State.
.
85 posted on 08/10/2005 10:53:38 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

How about majority rules? If the vast majority of Board members want to hear prayers, why shouldn't they? If one person doesn't, and everyone else wants to, why should the one rule the many? One person can (a) leave, (b) come late, (c) not pay attention, etc. If I were attending a religious gathering which preaches some things I do not follow or agree with, I am polite enough to just sit through it, as I sometimes did with my elderly mother. If I were attending a function and a prayer was offered by a religious representative of a religion I do not follow, I would politely sit there. Most well brought up adults would do the same.

People don't know how to be respectful and polite, and respect the religions of others? What's with this hair trigger intolerance?

Since the vast majority of people in the US believe in God in one way or another, why should the tiny minority of atheists rule who gets to say what and when? I don't think so.

And as for witches, when a large percentage of US citizens follow Wicca, get back to me at that point.


86 posted on 08/10/2005 11:28:10 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant

Exactly so.


87 posted on 08/10/2005 11:31:07 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
How about majority rules? If the vast majority of Board members want to hear prayers, why shouldn't they?

I actually am okay with that. However, the majority doesn't get to dictate what denominations or religions get access to perform public prayers at a government meeting. Either everyone gets the same privilege, or no one does.

If I were attending a religious gathering which preaches some things I do not follow or agree with, I am polite enough to just sit through it, as I sometimes did with my elderly mother.If I were attending a function and a prayer was offered by a religious representative of a religion I do not follow, I would politely sit there.

But this isn't a religious gathering or a private event. It's a meeting of a government body. That makes the situation quite different. This wiccan has no right to demand religious equality at a religious or private event. The case is different if we're talking about a government event.

88 posted on 08/10/2005 11:34:08 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I also read the Bible - the teachings of the Vedas and much of the essence of the Bible, especially the teachings of Jesus Christ, are extremely similar, and indeed, overlapping.

If you read much about Wicca with an open mind, you will see it is a hodge podge of this and that. If pagans or Wiccans want to be authentic, they should be authentic. But they aren't, it's faddish and done primarily for side benefits (such as the obligatory sexual license) or for effect, a kind of adolescent rebellion. I am not saying some may not be sincere in their search for - well, truth, I guess - but sincere people who do not do their homework are misled in the millions, throughout history.


89 posted on 08/10/2005 11:35:43 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
You're projecting your ideology on the Founding Fathers. They never expressed this typically modern idea.

See post #13.

90 posted on 08/10/2005 11:36:10 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

You state:

"However, the majority doesn't get to dictate what denominations or religions get access to perform public prayers at a government meeting. Either everyone gets the same privilege, or no one does."

Upon what do you base this personal and arbitrary idea? In that case, New Guinea witchcraft practitioners (who make Wiccans look like wonderbread)*, every variety of Native American Indian shaman, peyote swallowers, snake handler people, Kachina dancers, Shiva worshippers, etc etc should all be allowed to do their thing.

The very idea is ridiculous on its face. Obviously those attending the meeting should be able to decide whose prayers they want to hear.

*And in case you say they are only in New Guinea, I'm sure there are a handful or two of followers of their practices - or at least admirers - in the US.)


91 posted on 08/10/2005 11:40:53 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"The boy scouts are a private organization. SCOTUS has already ruled in their favor. The two situations are not analagous"

Well, first, I was obviously being (somewhat)facetious, so let's not be too literal-minded. That said, the Boy Scouts have been under constant assault from the ACLU, and there is pressure to force public entities such as the DOD, public parks, etc. to sever all contact of any sort with the Boy Scouts unless Scouting USA agrees to allow gay scoutmasters, etc. So, no, I don't think my headline is at all far-fetched in the current climate - the question is not whether the Boy Scouts have won some particular case at SCOTUS, it's whether the ACLU and friends will continue to flail and probe away until they beat back every conceivable type of public association with the scouts, unless the scouts (heaven forbid) agree to become an ACLU-clone organization.
92 posted on 08/10/2005 11:41:15 AM PDT by Enchante (Kerry's mere nuisances: Marine Barracks '83, WTC '93, Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombs '98, USS Cole!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Whose truth? Yours?

A world exists outside myself and yourself. Truth consists in the correspondence between our thoughts and the outside world.

So how can anyone know anything about God? We can know God through His effects.

A good Summary of Theology.

93 posted on 08/10/2005 11:45:56 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Upon what do you base this personal and arbitrary idea?

On the grounds that it is well-established in this country that the 1st Amendment does not allow the government to dsicriminate based on religion.

In that case, New Guinea witchcraft practitioners (who make Wiccans look like wonderbread)*, every variety of Native American Indian shaman, peyote swallowers, snake handler people, Kachina dancers, Shiva worshippers, etc etc should all be allowed to do their thing.

The board can lay down neutral rules: No dancing, no singing, no animals, no setting anything on fire. 2 minute time limit for any invocation or prayer.

They cannot, however, say "Christians-only" or "no Wiccans."

The very idea is ridiculous on its face. Obviously those attending the meeting should be able to decide whose prayers they want to hear.

Wherever do you get the idea that the majority get to dictate what religion gets to speak in public? This board is not required to allow anyone to perform an invocation before a board meeting. However, once they do, they can't exclude a religion because it is too "whacky."

94 posted on 08/10/2005 11:47:23 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
The board should have thought of that before it started allowing prayer to open its meetings.

Or they could use a reasonable standard for acceptable prayer. Since we can all know through unaided reason that God exists, and since we also know that everything depends on God for its existence, we can conclude that prayer to Him is appropriate at public meetings, if not essential.

95 posted on 08/10/2005 11:50:31 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

The fact that the County Board of Supervisors chooses to hear certain prayers and chooses not to hear others is note establishing a religion.

In your scenario, anyone and everyone can make something he/she calls a relgion and demand to be heard.

That's utterly ridiculus.


96 posted on 08/10/2005 11:50:47 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

I agree with your comments 100%.


97 posted on 08/10/2005 11:51:43 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Or they could use a reasonable standard for acceptable prayer.

Sure. Neutral rules as to acceptable prayer would be fine. Things like, no swearing, no threats, no incitement to violence etc. etc.

98 posted on 08/10/2005 11:52:00 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping


99 posted on 08/10/2005 11:54:31 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< OurFlorida.true.ws Impeach Judge Greer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
The fact that the County Board of Supervisors chooses to hear certain prayers and chooses not to hear others is note establishing a religion.

It is a use of government time and resources for the benefit of only certain religions. That means, the Wiccan woman in question, as a taxpayer, is having some of her tax-money spent for the benefit of another religious group while her group does not receive the same benefit.

In your scenario, anyone and everyone can make something he/she calls a relgion and demand to be heard.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If the board has a problem with this, they can simply discontinue this practice.

100 posted on 08/10/2005 11:55:13 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 321-322 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson