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 ...
GOTCHA!
No one said anything about "one faith" but you!. The original article mentions Judeo-Christian faiths being represented, so the suggestion that only one faith is being represented is a fiction.
It also means that the First Amendment doesn't apply since the government is not establishing any single faith as the state religion.
That doesn't really matter. The government is still treating certain faiths differently from others. The fact that there is a group of privileged faiths, rather than just one, doesn't make a difference.
All they have to do is, over time, allow different religious groups to open different sessions of the town board meetings.
Then you posted:
There is nothing in this article to show that they are not doing that, only that they might not be doing so for every group that believes they should be represented according to said group's timetable.
Nothing in the article? You're just flat-out wrong there.
Read it again, specifically the second paragraph:
"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."
She didn't ask for them to work on her timetable. She didn't ask for special treatment. She only asked to be added to the rotation. They denied the request because they don't like her religion.
Then again, it appears that you might have skipped the 6th paragraph as well:
"County officials said they had the right to limit the prayers to Judeo-Christian beliefs and religions based on a single god."
The article clearly shows that they are not allowing different religious groups to open different sessions of the town board meetings.
The Board thinks it's perfectly fine to allow certain religions access to the public meetings. They're wrong there, as well.
"GOTCHA!"?
You denied that they weren't discriminating against her faith. I have proven that they were, by their own admission.
Gotcha, yourself.
The board is promoting some faiths while specifically denying others.
Does the addition of the word "some" make you feel better? Does it make their actions any less un-Constitutional?
It is entirely possible for something to be consistent with the 1st Amendment, but still wrong & inappropriate for the government to do.
You know, one of these days people are going to read some history and understand exactly what an establishment of religion actually is.
Hint, it is NOT preferential treatment of one religion over another.
As a free people, we are fully entitled to prefer one religion over another and expressly endorse that preference in law through our elected representatives with the following restrictions:
1. We may NOT restrict the reasonable worship of other faiths (Not offering a prayer in a county meeting is not restricting worship, allowing human sacrifice is not reasonable worship).
2. We may NOT establish our preferred religion as an official STATE religion (See the Anglican church in England, Lutheran church in Germany and Wahabbi Islam in Saudi Arabia for examples.)
3. We may NOT require a religious TEST to hold office, although the people are free to practice religious DISCRIMINATION in who they will vote for.
That's it.
Thanks for admitting that the "one faith" was incorrect and retracting the allegation. And there's no "Gotcha" on me because I haven't needed to retract or modify any of my statements.
The simple fact remains that no one on the board wishes to extend an invitation to place the Wiccans into the rotation. The Wiccans could seek redress via the election process but they know they'll fail so they seek aid from the tyranny of the judiciary.
Then that becomes a matter for the people to decide through their representatives in the legislature or through public pressure. It is not the role of the courts.
If the people democratically decide to extort money (taxes) from individuals to promote religious doctrines which are abhorrent to them, that's simply 100% wrong, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not.
Cite where the board spends one dime promoting a religious doctrine. Do the folks giving the benediction receive a stipend?
The tyranny that makes us feel morally superior is the tyranny we embrace.
See post 183. You misrepresented the facts of this case to minimize what the Board was doing.
Not even close, but you did misrepresent the facts with the "one faith" falsehood.
In other news, Civil liberties lawyers have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to ban Christian priest from offering prayers before a public board's meetings.
I mis-spoke and corrected myself.
Your denial of the Board's actions was an outright falsehood, easily proven wrong and yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
If you were mistaken, admit it and there's no problem. Otherwise the inescapable conclusion is that you were deliberately lying.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for this woman if Wicca wasn't such a flagrantly bogus religion. It was invented after World War II by Gerald Gardner, pretty much out of thin air. It's nothing but a bunch of people mad at their Baptist grandmothers. They're desperate for a religious experience, the bloodless "mainstream" churches hold no appeal, and they're too liberal to ever darken the door of an evangelical christian denomination, so they're left with inventing a faith out of crystals, Marion Zimmer Bradley novels, and Halloween decorations.
Wrong again but that seems to be your forte.
I said the Board was inviting who they wanted and they were not showing preference to any other faith. Both points are correct.
Without the "one faith" element, there is no unconstitutional action here.
But thanks for playing.
No offense taken, sir. Thanks for your note.
The fact that they were not showing preference to only one faith does not mean that they were not showing preference to any faith.
Without the "one faith" element, there is no unconstitutional action here.
Not correct. Government cannot skirt the 1st Amendment by giving preference to Baptists and Catholics over other faiths, rather than to just Baptists alone (as an example).
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.