Wiccans Gone Wild
This guy pointed me to this blogger, who in turn led me to this article about this case. Now that the credits are out of the way, the case is Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, in which the Fourth Circuit ruled unanimously that the County Board of Supervisors may exclude Wiccans from the clergy roster they call on to lead their non-sectarian prayers.
When I first read the summaries, the case struck me as nuts. After reading the case itself, however, the logic seemed reasonable enough: when the government is the one doing the “praying,” it doesn’t have to grant equal time to Wiccans, atheists, Satanists or anyone else. Indeed, given the clear precedent of Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794-95 (1983), I’m not sure why anyone thought the Court of Appeal could have ruled differently even if it wanted to.
May 5th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
[...] protesting the efforts of the Anaheim Angels to capture the Los Angeles market. XRLQ posts about Wiccans Gone Wild: “the case is Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervis [...]
May 6th, 2005 at 12:48 am
Hmmm …
And here I was hoping a Satanist would preside over Jimmy Carter’s eventual state funeral.
May 6th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Why not? The case doesn’t say governments can’t hire Satanist ministers to preside over their nonsectarian prayers, only that the First Amendment does not require them to. I second your nomination for a Satanist at Carter’s funeral. Any more takers?
May 6th, 2005 at 2:37 pm
If you believe, as I do, that our government is not an entity onto itself, but a body of representatives of “we the people,” then the logic of “the government is the one doing the ‘praying’” falls flat.
The government of Virginia represents all Virginians, regardless of their religious beliefs. It is a clear violation of the establishment clause to favor one religious tradition over others. If state representatives don’t like this, and still feel the need for prayer, they can do so privately or at the religious institution of their choice.
May 6th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Not really, for three reasons. First, because the courts say so. Second, because common sense says so. These are prayers at government functions, they’re not “laws” imposed on anybody in any real sense. And to the extent there’s not “laws,” it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to argue that the Establishment Clause applies at all. Third, because the idea that government embodies “we the people” proves too much. If the government can’t be said to be the one doing the “praying” in this case, it can scarcely be said to be the one “speaking” whenever it stakes out a policy position on any topic. Do we really want to muzzle all elected officials from ever saying anything that 1% or more of their constituents may disagree with?
May 8th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Quite frankly, I don’t care much is this exclusion is “LEGAL”, so are alot of other questionable things.
This particular exclusion is a direct result of the practice of a particular religion which the County decided was not acceptable. I happen to know a good number of Wiccans (most of whom I disagree almost completely politically), my father and both brothers are 7th-Day Adventist ministers. If my freedom to practice the religion of my choice can be compromised or deminished because I don’t practice an acceptable religion, what is that freedom worth?
Does the County also have the right to limit those offering prayer to Fat White Bald Headed Males like myself? If not, why not?
The Freedoms of Speech and Religion are prescious. If my freedom is to mean anything, I must be willing to tolerate a similar freedom to those with whom I may disagree.
David McGraw
the Dragon