Posted on 08/10/2005 11:25:50 AM PDT by JZelle
RICHMOND -- Civil liberties lawyers have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow a Wiccan priestess to offer prayers before a public board's meetings. Cynthia Simpson was turned down in 2002 when she asked the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors to add her name to the list of people who customarily open the board's meetings with a religious invocation. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the suburban Richmond county. In their petition, received by the court yesterday, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers accuse the federal appeals court of trying to "obscure with legal smoke and mirrors" Chesterfield's preference for mainline religions. "Although Establishment Clause jurisprudence may be beset with conflicting tests, uncertain outcomes and ongoing debate, one principle has never been compromised ... that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another," ACLU attorneys wrote in their 13-page filing. County officials said they had the right to limit the prayers to Judeo-Christian beliefs and religions based on a single god.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.(Matthew 6:5-6 ).
Tell the ACLU that Wicca is not a legetimate religion and to go pound sand.
I don't know - it sure sounds like a condemnation of public prayer to me... or at the very least, saying that the ideal form of prayer is alone behind closed doors. Now the specific case we are talking about here is a group of politicians praying in public. Wouldn't the spirit of this passage suggest that those politicans would be better served if they prayed alone rather than as part of a group that has gathered for political purposes?
Stone Mountain's solution is hardly stifling religious expression of people that happen to hold public office. They are still free to worship as they see fit.
Frankly, I agree that public meetings of political boards should not include an overt prayer. There are simply too many denominations. As a Catholic, although I respect freedom of religion, I don't find it particularly meaningful to participate in the prayers of a rabbi, an imam or wiccan priestess. I also don't want to participate in the prayers of Episcopal homosexual clergy even though that is a wholly mainstream Christian religion, in and of itself. If they feel the need to ask God's blessing upon them as they take up the business of the board, a period of silence when they can all pray in their hearts in any way they see fit would be much nicer and would still serve the same purpose.
Of course, it would be far more logical for the ACLU to take this position to preserve the "civil liberties" of people of all faiths, but that is not their goal. Their goal is to support any non-Christian group they can so as to render Christianity to the fringes of society.
Think so? Then, by all means, go to the next session of Congress and demand that you be allowed to offer your prayer since they start every session with one.
The simple fact is that the Board invites a single person, not a mob, to offer a benediction at the beginning of their meetings. Multiple benedictions are nonsense, rendering the "come one, come all" concept moot.
The Atheist/Communist Litigation Unit will garner some headlines for themselves and waste much taxpayer money support some loon who they laugh at when she's not around, and nothing good will come of it.
Not by the Constitution, only by black-robed tyrants.
Ah the old leftist "equal time" doctrine. That dog just won't hunt.
Sorry, you can't lawyer your way out of this one. If I or anyone else has to explain to you what's wrong with this picture, then you are incapable of understanding.
On the other hand, as I pointed out, in the interest of fairness if one religion is invited to give the invocation, then all religions must be offered the same opportunity.
Now, I'm more than capable of understanding any proposition you put forth, provided YOU PUT ONE FORTH.
That is exactly the point of the ACLU suit. They seek to "establish" the wiccanism of Gardiner as legitimate. In essence to USE the 1st amendment to have government establish a religion.
That alone is enough to stop the game playing.
After a millenium or two they are free to reapply if they have established themselves like legitimate religion.
But it is a "public" meeting, which means "open to the public."
I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Wicca has been a recognized religion for some time. There are even Wiccan chaplains in the armed forces. All that the ACLU is asking for here is that what's sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander.
And yet Christians are demanding "equal time" for creation science in the science classroom. Go figure.
I support local control of schools.
Okay... And that has what to do with what I posted to you?
If schools want to teach intelligent design theory, that's fine with me. It shouldn't be up to a federal secular supremacist to decide.
But what about the folks who don't want their kids indoctrinated into the Christian religion? What recourse do they have? That's why the court system is structured the way it is -- so that folks have a recourse. And, since the Constitution forbids favoring one religion over another, I'm thinking the plaintiff in this story has a case.
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.