Posted on 11/16/2004 10:15:11 AM PST by conservativeinferno
(Great Falls-AP) Nov. 16, 2004 - The Town of Great Falls will ask the United States Supreme Court to overturn lower court rulings that prevents Town Council from using the name "Jesus Christ" in prayers at meetings.
The council voted 6-1 on Monday night to appeal the case.
Darla Kaye Wynne, a Wiccan high priestess, sued the town in 2001 after its leaders refused to open meetings only with nonsectarian prayers or to allow members of different faiths to lead the prayers.
A judge's ruling last year banned reference to a specific deity in prayers at the town's meetings, ruling such prayers were an unconstitutional government advancement of one religion and issued an order prohibiting council from using the “name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at town council meetings.” Great Falls hasn't used the name of Jesus Christ in prayers since then.
A three judge panel of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, upheld the ruling in July.
The full court refused to consider the case earlier this month. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster filed an Amicus brief to the full US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Great Falls.
Town lawyer Brian Gibbons said Great Falls officials had 90 days to appeal to the US Supreme Court.
Wynne's attorney has asked for about $38,000 to repay her legal fees. Wynne says the Supreme Court appeal will add $25,000 to the cost.
Andrew Siegel, an assistant professor of law at the University of South Carolina School of Law, says unless the decision is reviewed or altered that it is the constitutional rule for the region covered by the court. The ruling applies to all government meetings in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, says the ruling means other councils should stop giving sectarian prayers or face expensive lawsuits they are likely to lose.
Do people just not understand the concept of representative republics? If you want your wiccan views expressed in town council meetings, elect a wiccan. Otherwise, learn some of the damned tolerance you so hysterically beg of others.
ping
Reminder to Great Falls: Thou Shalt not suffer a witch to live.
You're seeing why that Commandment is still a good idea.
Even better - why live in a town/community with greatly different values than you? Obviously the town in question respects Christian values - thus the town council is a reflection of that.
Let the Wiccans move to freakland (Kalifornication) or some other "tolerant" local.
Evolution secret judges' reign,......prayer is always in Britain's......'Darwin' name?
I have a better understanding why witches were burned at the stake.
Misleading headline. The court ruling hardly constitutes "prayer not allowed in SC town".
Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see where this has anything to do with the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law..."). Thus, it would seem that the Constitution -- and therefore, the Federal courts -- has no jurisdiction here.
The SCOTUS should invalidate all Federal court rulings in this case. It is clearly a state issue.
How about equal treatment under the law? How about the establishment clause?
If they are going to open with a prayer, then it should be nonsectarian, or they should rotate among those who are interested in doing it. Seems reasonable to me.
You are recommending the execution of those whose religious beliefs you find repugnant?
People shouldn't be allowed to live where they want to live?
BTTT
One would think so. But that's not the way caselaw has evolved over the past two centuries.
Y'all might find this interesting.
"A judge's ruling last year banned reference to a specific deity in prayers at the town's meetings, ruling such prayers were an unconstitutional government advancement of one religion and issued an order prohibiting council from using the “name of a specific deity associated with any one specific faith or belief in prayers given at town council meetings.” "
First off. The 'separation of church and state' argument is a total cannard.
Their is nothing in the Constitution that states there is.
BUT! Even if it were true, the Constitution provides for states to make their own decisions regarding religion.
"Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
Somone should go through all the past presidential speeches and see just how many of them mentioned a specific deity.
Personally, I don't care if they open the meeting with a prayer. I'm not offended by people's prayers, regardless of what deity or deities they're praying to. It's just irrelevant to me, so I ignore it.
Whenever I find myself in a situation where a prayer is given, I simply sit quietly until it is over and the business of the situation begins.
Not all atheists demand that everyone be an atheist. In fact, most atheists don't really care whether you believe in some supernatural entity or not. We just don't believe in any of it. You're welcome to believe as you choose.
Now, if the prayer offered included some insult to some other religion which was represented in the room, then I'd see a reason for complaint.
Since a couple of folks here have suggested that followers of Wicca should be put to death, I guess they'd have no problem with that kind of prayer.
But opening a city council meeting with a prayer? No big deal to me.
Where they want to live? This idiot obviously doesn't live where she wants to if they want to change the people there.
What I was saying - there are locations that are far more tolerant of their viewpoints and lifestyle.
"You are recommending the execution of those whose religious beliefs you find repugnant?"
I never said her beliefs were repugnant to me. My beliefs, however, are repugnant to her and she is actively warring against my faith.
Which action, of course, would tend to validate the consideration of the Commandment.
Colony states. Who'd a thought it. What fate did wiccans suffer way back yonder? My, how far we've come in promoting diversity. But not to worry. The influx of Islamics will change the laws again to outlaw non-sectarian prayers and force the will of 'allah' on everyone.
Your faith requires the invocation of the name "Jesus Christ" during town meetings, and the simultaneous exclusion of any other forms of prayer?
Here, since this is what you want...
Yes, burn the witches, strangle the heretics, stone the atheists.
There. Happy now?
I'm sick to death of secular fundamentalists who will never stop until they've extinguished Christianity. At what point will it become a crime to pray in public? Oh, wait...it already is.
The facts do not substantiate your hysteria.
At what point will it become a crime to pray in public? Oh, wait...it already is.
Where is it a crime to pray in public?
"Where is it a crime to pray in public?"
It is a Federal crime to pray in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol building. How's that for starters?
"The facts do not substantiate your hysteria."
Really? Tell me where a non-Christian practice is under legal assault in the US? Where are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, or pagans under any legal proscription?
Is that so? First, show me the statute.
Second, you go into the rotunda, offer up a silent prayer, and they, what, use CIA mindreading devices to prove that you did it?
Tell me where a non-Christian practice is under legal assault in the US? Where are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, or pagans under any legal proscription?
The court ruling cited in the article would apply equally to any form of exclusively sectarian prayer to open a town meeting. If the town were predominantly Jewish, and offered up a Jewish invocation to open the public meeting, and didn't allow any other religious groups similar access, then that would violate the court ruling as well.
The real issue, then is not "legal proscription". The real issue is that Christianity is not being granted special legal approbation.
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.