A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday
reversed a lower court's decision ruling in Miss Simpson's favor. A
U.S. District Court magistrate judge in 2003 ruled that the county's
policy violated the Constitution by stating a preference for a set of
religious beliefs. - Washington Times
The most recent argument from the ACLU is that the federal government should ban mention of any deity during government business or allow any and all gods to be recognized equally. The end goal is to exclude God from public law. In this particular case Cynthia Simpson, a wiccan priestess, solicited the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to allow her to offer the opening prayer, as was tradition.
Her objective is clearly not to further her own religious expression, but to ban others' expressions of faith during government business.
"This isn't right," said Simpson, 49, a member of a local group known
as the Broom Riders Association. "I've been a
separation-of-church-and-stater all my life, long before I was a witch.
That's what was driving me all along." - The Free Lance-Star
The precedent that governs most government (and government funded) assemblies is the 1983 Supreme Court case of Marsh v. Chambers. In that case, the Court stated:
On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the
appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the
language of the Bill of Rights, S. Jour., supra, at 88; H. R. Jour.,
supra, at 121.
9
Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did
not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation
of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has
continued without interruption ever since that early session of
Congress.
Probably, the most powerful statement in this decision is as follows.
In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200
years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative
sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To
invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws
is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a
step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of
beliefs widely held among the people of this country. As Justice
Douglas observed, "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions
presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343
U.S. 306, 313
(1952).
The witch's position is that if the government allows a recognition of a deity and excludes others they have a corollary preference for one, though vanilla, religious point of view. And, as the county officials stated all too clearly, they pray "to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." There's no question they are discriminating against the witch's gods. The issue before the court is whether or not that constitutes a violation of her First Amendment rights.
In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the court stated:
Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious
instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular
institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find
no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government
to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to
widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must
be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not
thrust any sect on any person.
The question is whether the recognition of one faith in regards to opening prayers of public meetings or even reference in the laws themselves to a higher power, to the exclusion of another set of gods constitutes a violation of the excluded faiths' First Amendment rights. In the court's decision it did not say the state must avoid recognizing God. It simply said the state can not force people to recognize a particular sect. There seems to be no force used by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to ensure that the witch subject herself to their religious preference. She is not forced to pray to their God, recognize their religious preferences, and she is not even subjected to any form of instruction. They simply ask for their God's blessing before session. The courts have consistently held that this act does not constitute an establishment of religion or a denial of the witch's right to pursue her own.
The first article of the Bill of Rights clarifies our right to pursue religious practices without government intervention, as well as the right to assemble (presumably for religious or political purposes), and the right to speak both to the public at large and the government without punitive action.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
It's hard to see what part of this law is broken in refusing to allow a witch to lead prayer for government representatives that don't hold her religious beliefs.