Simpson v. Chesterfield County

[Jean Dudley]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Lund, Christopher wrote:

> The Fourth Circuit just released a very interesting case, Simpson v. 
> Chesterfield County - available here, 
> http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041045.P.pdf.
>
>   
>
>             It's a fascinating twist on Marsh v. Chambers.  Simpson is 
> a Wiccan who brought suit against the County's practice of prayer.  
> Now most of the lawsuits in Marsh's wake have been to shut the prayer 
> down, either on the basis that the public entity is not sufficiently 
> "legislative" or because the prayer was somehow "sectarian."  But 
> Simpson is not trying to shut the prayer down; she's trying to join in 
> - the Board opened up their meetings to members of the public to come 
> and give prayers.  (The prayer-givers were overwhelmingly Christian, 
> but there was at least one example each of a Muslim and Jewish 
> prayer-giver.)  Simpson wrote the Board, asking for her turn.  They 
> turned her down, saying that their invocations "are traditionally made 
> to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition" 
> (their words).  (Simpson, by the way, was a monotheist and her 
> invocations were entirely nondenominational - well within that aspect 
> of Marsh.)
>
>  
>
>             The Fourth Circuit today upheld the Board's policy, 
> holding that Marsh v. Chambers gives the County the discretion not 
> only to have a nondenominational prayer, but also to select the 
> prayer-giver.  Basically, the Court's reasoning boils down to this: 
> The prayer-giver in Marsh was of a single denomination, a Presbyterian 
> chaplain.  And if Nebraska could have a single Presbyterian chaplain 
> give prayers for sixteen years, surely the County could have a more 
> inclusive policy that includes at least some others (i.e., Baptists, 
> Catholics, Jews, Muslims, but not Wiccans).  Of no concern to the 
> Court is the fact that Simpson was singled out for exclusion (unlike 
> Marsh), or that the basis of the singling out was theological.  The 
> Court also tersely dismisses as inapplicable a passage from Marsh that 
> suggested that "proof that the chaplain's reappointment stemmed from 
> an impermissible motive" would be constitutionally problematic. 
>
>   
>
>             Thoughts?  (I certainly have mine, but I am biting my 
> tongue for the moment.)
>
>  
>
>             Chris

Plenty of thoughts.

George Bush was quoted before the 2000 election that he thought Wicca 
wasn't  a "real" religion, and therefore was not entitled to protection 
under the First Amendment.  His words seem to echo the vast majority of 
American opinion on Wicca and Neo-Paganism.  Part of the problem is the 
general perception that Wicca and Neo-Paganism are "made up" religions, 
and therefore are invalid.

We could get into all sorts of discussion about what is "real 
religion", but that's not the point;  the government has no business 
deciding what is a real religion over what isn't.

In Texas, there is a big push to disqualify Unitarians because it's not 
a "real" religion;  I find that pretty mind boggling, personally.  
There there is a situation where a boy was suspended from school for 
wearing make-up;  He claims it's a part of his Wiccan faith.  
(http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/print_041305_ns_suspended.html)

I find that dubious;  As a Wiccan priestess myself, there is no Wiccan 
dogma that stipulates the wearing of goth makeup outside of ritual.  
However, Wicca is a dogma-free religion.  "An it harm none, do what 
thou will" is one of the major beliefs.  I suspect it's ignorance on 
the part of the article's author--also you will note that "neo-pagan" 
is used instead of Neo-Pagan.  This is a common mistake, but the OED 
and all American Dictionaries  stipulate that proper names of religions 
and religious groups are capitalized.  You don't see "judeo-christian", 
do you?

Never mind that I think he looks like a caricature of a KISS member.  
What I think about his make-up isn't at issue.  What is at issue is his 
right to express his religious beliefs as he sees fit.  I also think 
that his argument should be based on sex-discrimination, not religious 
freedom.  Girls are allowed to wear makeup at the school, boys are 
prohibited.

In Simpson v. Chesterfield County, I think the county erred by saying 
that prayers were limited to Judeo-Christian invocations.  That's 
endorsement of a religious group, and that's illegal.

Jean Dudley
http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com
Future Law Student