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

Skip to comments.

ACLU backs Wiccan suit
The Washington Times ^ | 8-10-05 | Dionne Walker

Posted on 08/10/2005 11:25:50 AM PDT by JZelle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 next last
To: Bluegrass Conservative

There is no establishment of religion when the government allows someone from a local established church, synagogue, or mosque to offer an opening prayer for the event.

I highly doubt if there is an established wiccan coven open for services in the community.

Where can you go to verify that someone is actually an ordained wiccan clergy? You can usually find most thaat most churches/synagogues/mosques have some manner of an ordaining process that proves the person is authorized to represent that faith. Do wiccans have a similar process? Do satanic priests? Do druids?

How about the fellow we have had in our area, who paid $200.00 to some con artist in California, so that sucker could proclaim himself a pastor in the Church of Cannabis. Should he be allowed to offer prayer at the meeting? I think not.


161 posted on 08/11/2005 6:19:13 AM PDT by GLH3IL (What's good for America is bad for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GLH3IL

So you're suggestion is that only ordained ministers be allowed to pray at public meetings? No lay people at all?


162 posted on 08/11/2005 6:22:38 AM PDT by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Did YOU invite HER to your last party? If not, you're just as guilty of discrimination as the Board is.

Surely you are not unable to comprehend the difference between a public governmental meeting and a private gathering, are you?

163 posted on 08/11/2005 6:25:23 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
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.

If that's your fear, it's too late. Wicca has already been established as a religion. The US Army has Wiccan chaplains, Wiccan groups get the same legal and tax protections that Christian churches get, etc. In the eyes of the state, Wicca is already every bit as legitimate as Congregationalism, Catholicism, Islam and Judaism.

After a millenium or two they are free to reapply if they have established themselves like legitimate religion.

I'm sure our Mormon friends on this forum won't mind that you don't think they're a "legitimate religion" either.

164 posted on 08/11/2005 6:32:06 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Junior; joebuck
But it is a "public" meeting, which means "open to the public."

Thank you. That's the point exactly. That's a distinction that seems to have eluded some people here. They don't mind their own faith being promoted on the public dime, but woe betide anyone who wants to promote another faith.

The board started this by giving one faith the opportunity to speak, and now they cannot forbid other faiths the same opportunity.

165 posted on 08/11/2005 6:34:39 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
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.

What a total non-response.

166 posted on 08/11/2005 6:51:40 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Bluegrass Conservative

By allowing ordained clergy of differeent faiths to offer a prayer you feature a representation of a cross section of the community...while not endorsing or "establishing" a particular faith.


167 posted on 08/11/2005 6:56:54 AM PDT by GLH3IL (What's good for America is bad for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
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.

Congress has resolved this problem. They have allowed a wide variety of religious groups to pray at the opening of a session, including Muslims as far back as 1992. However, the waiting list is quite long and the red tape is fairly onerous.

Multiple benedictions are nonsense, rendering the "come one, come all" concept moot.

They don't have to allow multiple benedictions. All they have to do is, over time, allow different religious groups to open different sessions of the town board meetings.

168 posted on 08/11/2005 6:59:46 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Not by the Constitution, only by black-robed tyrants.

Please show me where the Constitution gives government the power to treat certain religions more favorably than others.

169 posted on 08/11/2005 7:01:22 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Ah the old leftist "equal time" doctrine.

The equal time law was the requirement that radio stations etc. provide equal time for differing political viewpoints. It was always a bad idea and, IMO, unconstitutional.

However, government bodies that hold open meetings and allow the public to comment on various government initiatives do not have the power to exclude certain viewpoints. They either have to give equal time for both sides of the issue (say, 3 speakers from each side) or they have to have a "first come, first speak" policy.

170 posted on 08/11/2005 7:04:50 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Santarians asking for an animal sacrifice before the meeting would be treated the same.

Apples and oranges. The board can set neutral rules as to the scope of the benediction. They can ban dancing, animal sacrifice, lighting things on fire etc. They cannot, however, ban the Santeria priest.

This is not a case of equals but a matter of using an absurd notion, "wicca" is a legitimate religion.

In every meaningful way, our society and government have decided that Wicca is a legitimate religion, on par with Christianity. The IRS recognizes the religion. The military has Wiccan chaplains. Wiccans can be buried in Arlington National Cemetary in a Wiccan ceremony.

It should be treated the same way as the surf and turn religion and the santaria religion. No invite.

Basically, your argument boils down to you not liking Wicca. Well, that's all well and good, but the 1st Amendment was created to prevent the majority from discriminating against minority or unpopular religions.

171 posted on 08/11/2005 7:10:35 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater
So if I found a religion based on worshipping guys named Daryl, I should be allowed to pray over a government body?

Sure, if you are sincere in your Darylism.

You would probably say "yes," therefore, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, you have made a conclusion but provided no support for your position.

172 posted on 08/11/2005 7:12:36 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; highball
All they have to do is, over time, allow different religious groups to open different sessions of the town board meetings.

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.

Of course, the Scientologists are on equal historical footing with the Wiccans so perhaps they could start by allowing a join benediction given by representatives of both.

173 posted on 08/11/2005 7:17:22 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Ignatius J Reilly

freedom of worship and offering a prayer by invitation are not the same, and failure to grant the invitation does not destroy the freedom.


174 posted on 08/11/2005 7:19:52 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: highball
Surely you are not unable to comprehend that the ACLU has sued private gatherings for what they term as discrimination, are you?
175 posted on 08/11/2005 7:21:06 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Madeleine Ward

Because the people's elected representatives have decided to not offer such an invitation. This does not restrict the freedom of religion for the uninvited party in the least.

If the uninvited party does not like being uninvited, they are free to peacably assemble and petition their fellow citizens to elect representatives who will invite them.

That's what happens in a free society. In a tyranny, you go to the local dictator and convince him to force the people to do what you want.


176 posted on 08/11/2005 7:23:24 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

Not in this case. Were I defending the ACLU on principle, you would be justified in bringing those cases up. However, since I never have, you're only clouding the issue.

In this case, we see a government grant special access to one faith while specifically denying that access to another faith. That cannot stand.


177 posted on 08/11/2005 7:24:21 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
Quite correct, they are suing because no one on the Board wants to invite them. This is a lawsuit in support of a temper tantrum.
178 posted on 08/11/2005 7:24:34 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

No, a blatant establishment of religion would be the First United States Church of the Christian God, with a tax levy on all citizens to fund the church practices and membership required to hold public office.

Local county officials deciding who to and who not to invite to offer a prayer is the prerogative of a free people and is only an establishment of religion in the most ridiculously open-ended reading of the principle imaginable.


179 posted on 08/11/2005 7:26:19 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

No governmental body has any business leading prayers, having chaplains, etc.


180 posted on 08/11/2005 7:28:21 AM PDT by Sloth (History's greatest monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Durbin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-210 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