quote:

---

WITCHCRAFT NOT WELCOME
County Can Ban Wiccan From Giving Invocation, 4th Circuit Says

BY TERRY CARTER

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."

---

Emphases mine, so you didn't miss any of the idiocy.

Except if you have a faith we don't like.

quote:

---

Liam wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Maybe these stories are getting more emphasis nowadays, or I'm paying more attention, but is this trend of legislation based on morality or religion a recent one?

---

Such legislation is hardly new, but there's been a lot of it lately and many people attribute it to Bush winning the re-election on the Jesus vote.

Another thing, it seems to me, and I may or may not be mistaken, that all the political correctness running rampant nowadays also stems from the religious zealots.

For the most part, this type of idiocy comes from the small, loud minority. And frankly, they get their way a lot because of the noise they can generate.

religious freedom....

my brain hurts.

Oh snaps, I'm due to give a Order of the Jedi sermon in 15 min.

Ok, well I'm sure the second happening is probabbly very unlikely and the supreme court will repeal this. But for the, 5-12 months that it takes the SC to get to it, these people wont be allowed to practice their religion.

Split in Half!

quote:

---

Verily, Nae doth proclaim:
Yay, religious freedom!

Except if you have a faith we don't like.

---

Nae said it best.

quote:

---

DrPaintThinner had this to say about Punky Brewster:
practice their religion.

---

Perhaps I overlooked the line where it said that these people didn't have the freedom to worship as they pleased. If so, by all means point it out to me.

This strikes me as a situation that's only an issue because someone chose to make it an issue. Sort of like the whole "One nation, under God" guy who pulled his kid out of school and sued the school system.

I mean...do any of you feel really, truly oppressed by this? Did you wake up to day and find yourself forced to live a lie because you couldn't deliver a satanic, polytheistic, or gnostic invocation at your local town meeting?

...When was the last time any of you were asked to give an invocation at your local town meeting, by the way? Or for that matter, when's the last time any of you actually went to your local town meeting?

I'm all for religious freedom, but frankly if this kind of pissy "I'm going to make an issue out of bad semantics, and rack people up on both sides of my pissy non-issue) is the only thing you have to worry about in the world, then you live a truly blessed existence.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about the price of gas more than whether or not witches, satanists, or people who worship Steve can deliver an invocation that frankly only has meaning to people who believe the same thing as the person delivering it.

Some of the responses in this thread make it out like they're burning witches on the White House lawn. Get a grip.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
stuff.

---

The fact is that the passing of this may set a precedent to do more of this stuff.

So, if someone were to choose no religion or a non-judo christian one, they still have to listen to prayers and praises to Earl, God and Steve if they go to meetings like this.

Since this ruling does base itslef on the "long history of prayer in both Congress and the Supreme Court itself." It is apparently okay to shove that religion down someones throat. But, they will make laws to keep others from worshipping how they choose.

And maybe some do find it offensive, or maybe it does make someone uncomfortable, and maybe, that is part of why some people do not attend those meetings to start with.

quote:

---

So quoth Trent:
So, it's okay for them to pray to whoever before any city/local meeting, yet deny the right for someone else to pray in a different manner?

So, if someone were to choose no religion or a non-judo christian one, they still have to listen to prayers and praises to Earl, God and Steve if they go to meetings like this.

Since this ruling does base itslef on the "long history of prayer in both Congress and the Supreme Court itself." It is apparently okay to shove that religion down someones throat. But, they will make laws to keep others from worshipping how they choose.

And maybe some do find it offensive, or maybe it does make someone uncomfortable, and maybe, that is part of why some people do not attend those meetings to start with.

---

ohhhhhhhhh no you don't. Neither of you. Don't start that slippery slope "it sets a bad precedent" crap.

I don't like this any more than you guys do. Frankly I don't think ANY religion belongs at GOVERNMENT functions, yours, mine, or any other. But at least I don't have to lean on the slippery slope "sets a bad precedent" crutch. You don't want to be a part of an invocation, don't say "Amen" or "Selah" or whatever. Use the system to try and change it, and if you get outvoted, then maybe your voice isn't the majority. Or isn't loud enough a vocal minority.

I am sick to death of idiots suing for this crap. Worship however you want. The majority in this location likes it another way for official affairs.

quote:

---

Manticore's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
The fact is that the passing of this may set a precedent to do more of this stuff.

---

Oh, and if Azizza can't use the slippery slope arugment without getting slammed, you shouldn't give it a shot.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
ohhhhhhhhh no you don't. Neither of you. Don't start that slippery slope "it sets a bad precedent" crap.

I don't like this any more than you guys do. Frankly I don't think ANY religion belongs at GOVERNMENT functions, yours, mine, or any other. But at least I don't have to lean on the slippery slope "sets a bad precedent" crutch. You don't want to be a part of an invocation, don't say "Amen" or "Selah" or whatever. Use the system to try and change it, and if you get outvoted, then maybe your voice isn't the majority. Or isn't loud enough a vocal minority.

I am sick to death of idiots suing for this crap. Worship however you want. The majority in this location likes it another way for official affairs.

---

Dont' quote me then use Manticores use of slippery slope. Quote him.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
The majority in this location likes it another way for official affairs.

---

And if that changes to the minority? Once it's in law, it will be harder to get rid of it, even if the majority no longer wants it.

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote this stupid crap:
ohhhhhhhhh no you don't. Neither of you. Don't start that slippery slope "it sets a bad precedent" crap.

I don't like this any more than you guys do. Frankly I don't think ANY religion belongs at GOVERNMENT functions, yours, mine, or any other. But at least I don't have to lean on the slippery slope "sets a bad precedent" crutch. You don't want to be a part of an invocation, don't say "Amen" or "Selah" or whatever. Use the system to try and change it, and if you get outvoted, then maybe your voice isn't the majority. Or isn't loud enough a vocal minority.

I am sick to death of idiots suing for this crap. Worship however you want. The majority in this location likes it another way for official affairs.

---

The majority in a modern secular state does not get to use that state to endorse one religion over another in any way and saying that one type of prayer is acceptable at official functions while another is not is doing just that. "Idiots suing for this crap" are helping upkeep one of the basic tenets of liberal democracy.

Ms. Simpson is using the proper channels to retain her rights.

It's not a friviolus thing she's suing over.

As for this case, I dont' agree with it but at the same time I see Deth's argument.

quote:

---

And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Trent was all like:
Oh, and if Azizza can't use the slippery slope arugment without getting slammed, you shouldn't give it a shot.

---

Let me try and understand what you're saying

Azizza made an arguement that this could make a precedent and was slammed.

My arguement that this might make a precedent is obviously going to be slammed because Azizza made a similar arguement?

Ok, I see where I'm wrong. sorry.

Edit: This is my interpretation of what you're saying here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Manticore fucked around with this message on 05-06-2005 at 05:12 PM.

quote:

---

Trent was naked while typing this:
They are making a law denying that person freedom of religion.

Ms. Simpson is using the proper channels to retain her rights.

It's not a friviolus thing she's suing over.

---

Amen. From the sounds of it Deth, you need to learn when to defend your freedoms and rights in this country. It's opinions like yours (no offense meant) that lead to THIS kind of thing.

"Oh, it's not a big deal"

Yeah, it is.

quote:

---

Manticore had this to say about (_|_):
Let me try and understand what you're saying

Azizza made an arguement that this could make a precedent and was slammed.

My arguement that this might make a precedent is obviously going to be slammed because Azizza made a similar arguement?

Ok, I see where I'm wrong. sorry.

Edit: This is my interpretation of what you're saying here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

What I'm saying is, he uses it and gets flamed.

So, you may want to avoid the flames, and not use it. For if it's incorrect in one debate, I'd have to imagine, it would not be proper in others.

But hey, lets derail the topic now while it's still young.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Trent:
What I'm saying is, he uses it and gets flamed.

So, you may want to avoid the flames, and not use it. For if it's incorrect in one debate, I'd have to imagine, it would not be proper in others.

But hey, lets derail the topic now while it's still young.

---

If you had noticed, I was making a quip at the fact that you were using a precedent to tell me that I shouldn't suggest that precedence might occur.

Edit: Besides, it's not like their isn't a little room in this thread to make a joke.

Manticore fucked around with this message on 05-06-2005 at 05:21 PM.

quote:

---

Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Trent who doth quote:
They are making a law denying that person freedom of religion.

---

Correction! They are making a law denying that person an invocation at town meetings. To sensationalize it as you have done is both misleading and inaccurate.

quote:

---

Ms. Simpson is using the proper channels to retain her rights.

It's not a friviolus thing she's suing over.

---

Actually, it is pretty frivolous. If the federal government were passing this law, that would be one thing, but the only thing the 9th circuit court of appeals has done here is allow the county to decide for itself. A county gathering is frequently nothing more than fifty or sixty people, and generally held on private property.

It would be far more invasive for the federal government to force these people to sit through an invocation than it would be to simply allow them to decide for themselves whether they want to kick this woman out of their meetings or not.

The residents of the county are the ones limiting this woman's freedom of expression, but that's nothing new. It happens every day in everything from home owners associations to public schools. It's generally accepted that a group of people has the right to tell a single person to shut up and get the hell out.

quote:

---

x--AzizzaO-('-'Q) :
Precedence, or what you like to erroneously call the "slippery slope" is indeed a valid argument. Judges use it every day. You have to look at all the implications of a decision, law, whatever and take that into account.

As for this case, I dont' agree with it but at the same time I see Deth's argument.

---

Precedence and "slippery slope" arguments are two completely different things. "Slippery Slope" arguments are defined as a logical fallacy. They are not valid arguments. Ever. Taking a step in any direction does not, under any circumstances or in any situation, imply another step in the same directon.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-06-2005 at 05:24 PM.

quote:

---

Manticore had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
If you had noticed, I was making a quip at the fact that you were using a precedent to tell me that I shouldn't suggest that precedence might occur.

---

I am not sure where I used it, please send me a PM and point it out so I'll avoid it's use in future postings.

I do not want to derail this any further.

quote:

---

Maradon! was naked while typing this:
Taking a step in any direction does not, under any circumstances or in any situation, imply another step in the same directon.

---

What does precedence suggest if not that taking a step in any direction may lead to another step in the same direction?

quote:

---

Peanut butter ass Shaq Manticore booooze lime pole over bench lick:
What does precedence suggest if not that taking a step in any direction may lead to another step in the same direction?

---

Precedence:

"In the past, a company merger has caused my stocks to rise. A company merger is coming, therefore I will buy more stocks."

"Slippery Slope":

"A man having sex with another man will soon lead to men having sex with children and animals."

Want to try that again?

Precedence:

"Lowering taxes increases the amount of revenue in government. I need more money so I will lower taxes."

"Slippery Slope":

"Because kids listen to rock music, they will inevitably begin listening to heavy metal, then become satanists."

"Precedence" is using past information to make an educated guess at future occourances.

"Slippery Slope" is trying to draw logically unsound connections between events in an attempt to portray an extremely undesirable outcome as the inevitable result of a given argument.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-06-2005 at 05:30 PM.

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about Tron:

"Precedence" is using past information to make an educated guess at future occourances.

"Slippery Slope" is trying to draw logically unsound connections between events in an attempt to portray an extremely undesirable outcome as the inevitable result of a given argument.

---

You made me read your entire post to get the answer I actually wanted. I was only asking for clarification, it was in no way an arguement. So much hate.

quote:

---

Manticoreing:
You made me read your entire post to get the answer I actually wanted. I was only asking for clarification, it was in no way an arguement. So much hate.

---

I only gave examples

quote:

---

Verily, Maradon! doth proclaim:
I only gave examples

---

and both colorful and enlightening, they were.

They decide to allow the Wiccan to give their invocation. Great we pleased one particular small minority and the larger body of people that want religous freedom. Everyone is happy.

Next some other religon; how about a Taoist they are cool guys or so I hear, comes by and says I would really like to give an invocation. Well the Wiccan was allowed to so I guess the Taoist has to. Tao probably has a couple million worshipers so no biggie.

Little later another religion comes by, the Jedi of UK fame. Well they let the Wiccans and Taoists go so they damn well let the Jedi have their go. By this point the whole meaning of the invocation is down to opening remarks. Along come the Holy Church of the Sacred Republicans and the More Holy and Correct then the Republicans Democrats.

If you guys are going to do the slippery slope do it with some gusto. It's more fun that way.

1. Part of the insinuation here, by Trent and Manticore, seems to be that in this one isolated case in Bumfuck, Virginia, will somehow be heard by the Supreme Court and lead to all non-Christian religions being somehow lessened.

This sounds an awful lot like the concerns I (as it turns out, wrongly) had about the Schiavo case. If the Supreme Court had backed Congress's play with that last minute "Terry's Law" or whatever the hell it was called, it would have seriously fucked with the whole idea of checks and balances. But the Supreme Court, wisely, decided on multiple occasions not to hear the case. That sets precedent. The SC may be loaded with Republicans, but they're still the SC first, and Republicans second.

It, like my concern with the Schiavo case, is valid, but ultimately I think it'll be proven (like my concern with the Schiavo case) to be alarmist.

Now, if your counter to that argument is to start painting a scenario where non-Christians (which is more or less all that "pagan" means) are somehow persecuted and leave the implications nebulous (which is more or less what's been going on here with all the oh-so-clever wit flying around), well, then you're starting down a slippery slope. If they're just being left out, that's actionable legal matters. However, it still has to get to the SC, and they still have to opt to hear the case. As I pointed out above, this SC seems to be very good about not fuxoring where they shouldn't.

2. I'm getting a bit sick of people making mountains out of molehills. Let's take a look at this. A wiccan wants to give an invocation at the start of a town meeting. They say no, based on the fact they read the thing as being "Judeo-Christians Only, No Pagans Allowed". The wiccan sues, on the grounds of religious persecution.

Now, for this to even be an issue, you have to KNOW that their position is what it is, and you have to set out to make waves. Remember all the talk about obnoxious, but very loud minorities? Yeah. This is one of them. Just like the asshole who brought up the whole Pledge of Allegiance "One Nation, Under God" crap. If you're the one polarizing the issue, you are no longer the victim. You are an active participant in misbehavior.

You could have gone through the system. Started a grassroots movement, gauge the local feel for things. Instead, the Wiccan went hot-blooded and started throwing lawsuits around. Lawsuits that are only thought-provoking if you need something to be pissed off about for twenty minutes. Ultimately, I doubt this is going to matter outside Virginia. In fact, if it did hit the SC and they ruled in the Wiccan's favor, that could set a bad precedent. The whole idea of any sort of "religious moment" in a governmental meeting seems to me to run counter to the separation of Church and State. If you say you have to allow ANY religion, much less ALL religions in, in an official ruling, it's an open violation of Church and State.

That's not good, in turn, because one of the principles we built the country on was tolerance of all races, religions, creeds, etc, but at the same time you don't want the trappings of religion being mixed in with government. That's part of what happened in the dark ages, with everything being run by the Church before it went into policy. It especially becomes difficult if you have to run a policy by all religions to get clearance.

So the solution SHOULD be, AT MOST, a moment for reflection at the beginning of a town meeting or whatever. Anyone who wants to have a religious moment can, or you can simply collect your thoughts.

Notice, please, that at no time did I say that, or side with, the idea of being excluding any religion OVER ANY OTHER RELIGION was a good thing. Either ALL religions are OFFICIALLY in, or preferably ALL religions are OFFICIALLY out. My issue was with the alarmist end-of-freedom crap that seems to pervade any discussions like this, as if it were some doing of this administration that allows it. News flash: It may make news now, but this policy? Yeah. It was in effect during Clinton's administration. Why is it an issue now? Because someone MADE it an issue.

Further, attempts to settle the issue by including people of other denominations and faiths was referred to as "tokenism". So what IS the solution? That's the thing. There's a limited number of seats. How many of them should be filled with alternative faiths? What's the criteria? Because frankly if the argument is that Wiccans aren't getting a fair shake...well...there's probably more people in the world who understand what Jedi is all about than there are Wiccans. And there's more Hindus, Moslems, and Buddhists than all the Wiccans and Jedi put together.

So there is an aspect of "get some perspective" in my earlier comments, though I admit, not very well organized.

If a county started building a road that went partly over people's property without compensating them it would not be their job to start a 'Citizens for keeping that damn road off my garden'-initiative, under eminent domain laws they have a right to due compensation in cases where a state must infringe on their property and the proper venue for enforcing that right against a defiant state are the courts.

The real problem with the ruling is how the court ruled that if a legislative assembly accepts all Judeo-Christian religions that alone is enough to prove that they are not discriminating based on religion in a way that would constitute an "impremissible motive" under the SC precedent case.