Ok I call bullshit
May. 4th, 2005 04:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ebonlockWITCHCRAFT NOT WELCOME
County Can Ban Wiccan From Giving Invocation, 4th Circuit Says
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.
[...]
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 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.
Well, it's nice to know that the freedom of religion mentioned in the First Amendment only extends to Judeo-Christian denominations, at least as far as this court is concerned.
County Can Ban Wiccan From Giving Invocation, 4th Circuit Says
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.
[...]
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 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.
Well, it's nice to know that the freedom of religion mentioned in the First Amendment only extends to Judeo-Christian denominations, at least as far as this court is concerned.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 06:20 am (UTC)It read something like this:
"Throughout the constitution, various indications have been made that might lead one to believe we live in a free and tolerant society. This is not true. Fearful and ignorant politicians are to imagine restrictions that will oppress people who are different from the mainstream, and that will ultimately serve to highlight their own ignorance and petty fears."
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 03:22 pm (UTC)Ah yes, you're right, I had forgotten that one, though in this case it's not so much politicians as judges. Of course considering the beating the courts are taking from the nuttiest of the fundies and right wingers these days I can at least understand why they decided the way they did. I just wish tolerance didn't usually take a backseat to fear in this day and age.