Posted on 04/29/2005 8:31:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a Virginia county can refuse to let a witch give the invocation at its meetings by limiting the privilege to clergy representing Judeo-Christian monotheism.
Lawyers for Wiccan practitioner Cynthia Simpson planned to file a motion this week asking the full court, based in Richmond, Va., to review the three-judge panel’s decision.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has limited government entanglement with religion in the past, the 4th Circuit’s decision relies heavily on a case in which the high court carved out separate and broader boundaries and guidelines for prayer at legislative gatherings. In that 1983 case, the court ruled there was no violation of the establishment clause when the Nebraska legislature used a Presbyterian minister over a number of years to lead its invocations. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783.
The court said in Marsh that as long as the selection of a particular minister did not stem "from any impermissible motive," it was constitutional. The Marsh opinion also strongly emphasized the long history of prayer in both Congress and the Supreme Court itself.
The 4th Circuit ruled Chesterfield County’s Board of Supervisors did not show impermissible motive in refusing to permit a pantheistic invocation by a Wiccan because its list of clergy who registered to conduct invocations covers a wide spectrum of Judeo-Christian denominations. Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, No. 04-1045 (April 14). Chesterfield County is in the Richmond suburbs.
"The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths," Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in the opinion.
Simpson is a leader in the spiritual group Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca and a member of another known as the Broom Riders Association. Her lawyers argue the 4th Circuit wrongfully discriminates among religions.
"A very basic point is that governments cannot make distinctions among their citizens on the basis of religion," says Rebecca Glenberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, who argued on behalf of Simpson.
A law professor who has been involved in establishment clause litigation says the full 4th Circuit is not likely to change the ruling. And if it does, Douglas Laycock says, the Supreme Court probably would not take up a case with questions about limiting legislative prayer to Judeo-Christian faiths.
"The court has only so many chips to spend on this issue," says Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law who believes there should be greater separation of church and state. "They haven’t touched legislative prayer since the Marsh case more than 20 years ago. And it would be immensely unpopular in many parts of the country to let a Wiccan give a prayer. The courts aren’t supposed to follow election returns, though they sometimes seem to do so, and they’re even getting death threats now."
The 4th Circuit opinion carefully builds on precedent that indicates a preference for more mainstream religions.
Legislative invocations "constitute ‘a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country,’ being as we are ‘a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being,’ " Wilkinson wrote, quoting the Marsh opinion, which itself was in part quoting the 1952 case Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306.
After Simpson complained about not being permitted to conduct an invocation, the board of supervisors added rabbis and a Muslim imam to its list of clergy, says Ayesha Khan, legal director for the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who also argued the case for Simpson. That "tokenism" wasn’t enough, she says.
"The Marsh case said that if the prayer giver was selected with impermissible motive, then it would be improper," she says. "If the board of supervisors didn’t mean to discriminate, then I don’t know what they did mean. The 4th Circuit gave short shrift to that point."
Simpson had told the board she would drop her complaint if the legislative body discontinued invocations.
"Often what we see is they’ll use lawsuits for censorship," says Steven W. Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Simpson case. The NLF is a Virginia Beach, Va.-based Christian public interest law firm.
Chesterfield County Attorney Steven L. Micas, citing the probability of continuing litigation in the matter, limited his comment to a prepared statement: The "invocation policy was developed shortly after the Supreme Court of the United States established the constitutional ground rules for legislative invocations. Our policy exceeds the inclusiveness standards set by the court."
What Quiddich league do they play in?
Wait a second, didn't the founders come here to practice witchcraft and outlaw Christianity? Don't you listen to our democratic Senators?
***Lawyers for Wiccan practitioner Cynthia Simpson planned to file a motion***
Lawyers? Why not just put a spell on them!
Wiccans are sad, foolish, disturbed, often man-hating, damaged, pathetic women using the stupidity and ignorance of the ages to fill the huge holes in their souls.
People should be laughing at them. For that is the sum total of their "wiccanism," laughable stupidity.
I thought Wiccans believed that nature and Earth overrule man and man's laws. Why, then, are they so concerned with a simple prayer at a local meeting?
Hmmm. Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Not allowing Wiccan convocation does not prevent free exercise. But, it does indicate something akin to aversion. Tough to say where this one will go. It'll probably boil down to not allowing a formal convocation by any religious figure, which has been the response in the past. The trouble with the ACLU is an entrenched anti-establishment attitude that goes back to the founding of that organization by, essentially, communists. Christianity plays a large establishment role in the US, so the ACLU is against it, rather than the other way around, which would be support for Wicca or any other religion that is outside of the establishment. When you get right down to it, the ACLU is antireligion. Some religions are more "revolutionary" than others, and hence more useful. But they'll all be eventually targeted.
"People should be laughing at them. For that is the sum total of their "wiccanism," laughable stupidity."
As a Jew I guess I should say the same thing about Christians.
BTW, the US government, even our military recognizes "Wicca" as an established religion. Wiccan services are even held on military installations to include Ft. Hood.
I got a better idea. Let the wiccan come say a "prayer" and then beat the hell out of 'em in the alley afterwords. Then they won't want to come back and the problem is solved. (just kidding of course)
Local radio host said "Don't pi$$ her off, she's a witch!"
This is my home county. I don't want a Wiccan praying. But since they county allows Christians, Jews and Muslims, I don't see how they can/should stop this.
As with free speech, religious freedom only exists if it applies to all. This is an example of the government taking sides in a religious debate, and that cannot be allowed.
I doubt you know any Wiccans. Don't believe everything you read from fundamentalists. BTW, there are a lot of male Wiccans too.
Probably not, since many core Christian beliefs are actually Jewish beliefs.
Pan-thiests lost that round.
I always confuse Wiccans with Satanism. Is there a difference ?
For Wiccans, right?
"As with free speech, religious freedom only exists if it applies to all. This is an example of the government taking sides in a religious debate, and that cannot be allowed."
So, you beieve that the government, by not allowing this witch to participate in the invocation, is "establishing" a religion or preventing the "free exercise" thereof?
Court rulings have gone way too far to ensure that Americans are "free from religion" by forcing us to publicly acknowledge all religions, neutering the religious nature of traditional celebrations or by not allowing the public celebration of a particular religion at all.
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.