|
But both cases involve a stark and entirely unjustifiable denominational
discrimination against Wiccans. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit case,
contrary to common understanding, is not about the content of government prayer
or speech. To be sure, it appears that the County Council required that
the prayer be "monotheistic." But, whether or not that is itself
constitutionally problematic because of the "government speech" doctrine (cf.
Johanns; the CTA4's own recent decision in Wynne v. Great
Falls), it's not directly at issue in the case, because Ms. Simpson
herself is a monotheist, and she offered to make a nonsectarian,
non-proselytizing invocation that referred to a divinity in very general
terms. She was excluded not because of the content of her
proposed prayer but because of her affiliation with a disfavored
denomination. Although the Board's list of approved persons includes
clergy from at least 235 congregations (including the Islamic Center of
Virginia, which has sent Imams to give the invocations, Jewish congregations,
Jehovah's Witness congregations, and Morman churches), County policy "allows
only monotheistic congregations to add their
religious leaders to the list of those eligible to give an invocation."
Because the County viewed the Wiccans as failing this monotheism test, Ms.
Simpson was excluded. Just as clearly unconstitutional as the Indiana
case, no?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:46
AM
Subject: RE: More Discrimination Against
Wiccans
Aren't these
cases rather different? The Indiana case involves a judicial intrusion
into the private religious decisionmaking of parents (in the absence of any
dispute between them). The 4th Cir. and the 10 commandments cases raise
the very different issue of governmental speech relating to
religion. I think one can support the permissibility of
generalized governmental statements about religion, and
even "Judeo-Christian" prayers in the Marsh tradition, without
accepting the Indiana decision trumping private religious/parental
rights. (Needless to say, one also can reject the permissibility of
generalized governmental statements about religion or argue more specifically
against the 4th Circuit ruling or against the posting of the 10 commandments,
etc., but I do think that those cases raise different
questions.)
Dan Conkle
**************************************
Daniel O. Conkle
Professor of Law
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana
47405
(812)
855-4331
fax (812)
855-0555
e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**************************************
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 10:33
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: More
Discrimination Against Wiccans
Isn't it fairly obvious what this judge and the domestic relations
person were thinking? They were thinking that this is a "Christian"
country, just as the 4th Cir was when it approved legislative prayers that
include monotheism and exclude Wiccans. The "system" requires faiths
that are consistent with Christianity, and those that are not, can be
excluded, on this reasoning.
This is a direct result of the current, though
misguided, cultural pressure to "reclaim" the country for Christians,
is it not? If there were two states, other than Alabama, where we were
going to see this play out, it would be Virginia and Indiana.
My question is if this case were to go up, which side would the DOJ
take, given its position in the Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance
cases?
Marci
In a message dated 5/26/2005 10:54:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marty Lederman wrote:
According to this article (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481), an Indiana judge has prohibited a pair of
divorced parents from exposing their 9-year-old son to Wiccan beliefs
and rituals. Both parents practice Wicca, and both
strongly oppose the court's restriction. The court's order
apparently was based on the recommendation of a domestic relations
bureau, which was concerned about the "discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr.
Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the
parochial school [that the child attends]. . . . Ms. Jones and
Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent
belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in
its report.
I just wrote about
this on my blog. It's the most obvious and blatant free exercise violation
I can ever recall seeing. What on earth was this judge thinking?
Ed
Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send
message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note
that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
|
