Comments on: Wiccans Gone Wild

By: David "the Dragon"

David "the Dragon" — Sun, 08 May 2005 23:52:10 +0000

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

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 06 May 2005 23:05:37 +0000

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?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 06 May 2005 21:37:06 +0000

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.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 06 May 2005 16:00:13 +0000

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?

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Fri, 06 May 2005 07:48:03 +0000

Hmmm …

And here I was hoping a Satanist would preside over Jimmy Carter’s eventual state funeral.

By: The Southern California Law Blog » Six Pix from SoCal

The Southern California Law Blog » Six Pix from SoCal — Fri, 06 May 2005 05:38:31 +0000

[...] 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 [...]