Non Fluffy Wicca

Inside the First Amendment - A Right For One Is A Right For All:


In theory, the government treats all religions equally in America. In practice, however, some religions are more equal than others.

But two victories by minority religious groups this month are small but significant steps toward leveling the religious-liberty playing field as promised in the First Amendment.

On April 23, Wiccans finally won their 10-year battle to have the symbol of their faith added to the list of 38 "emblems of belief" approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs for placement on government headstones and memorials.

A few days earlier, on April 17, a religious group called Summum won a key round in its fight to place monuments in Utah city parks alongside Ten Commandments monuments. (Summum, founded some 30 years ago, is difficult to summarize, but the group describes its beliefs as consistent with Gnostic Christianity.)

The message to government officials in both cases is simple but profound: Under the First Amendment, a right for one is a right for all.

Wiccans shouldn't have to file lawsuits (this one brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on their behalf) to be treated fairly by the government. But until lawyers got involved, the VA stonewalled repeated requests for approval of the pentacle - the five-pointed star that symbolizes the Wiccan faith.

All signs point toward government bias against Wicca. While the Wiccans waited for an answer year after year, other groups had their symbols recognized in a matter of weeks.

Now the settlement agreement filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin requires that the government finally acknowledge the right of Wiccan soldiers to have pentacles placed on their headstones and plaques.

In the Summum case, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an injunction that would allow Summum to place its Seven Aphorisms in a public park in Pleasant Grove, Utah. The park already has a Ten Commandments monument donated years ago by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. Summum had argued that if the city allows one group to put up a monument in a public park, it must allow other groups the same opportunity.

Pleasant Grove officials could have avoided the problem entirely by not allowing any private groups to put up monuments in the park. Instead they decided that the Ten Commandments monument should be treated differently because of "historical relevance" to the city.

The court unanimously rejected that argument and ruled that "the city may further its interest in promoting its own history by a number of means, but not by restricting access to a public forum traditionally committed to public debate and the free exchange of ideas."

These legal victories by Wicca and Summum are stark reminders to government officials that religious diversity in America goes far beyond the "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish" description of the nation popular in the 1950s. As Harvard University professor Diana Eck documents in A New Religious America, this is now the most religiously diverse place on earth.

As the religious playing field grows more crowded, the only way to avoid conflict and litigation is for the government to enforce the First Amendment ground rules without favoring one religion over others - or religion over non-religion.

It doesn't matter whether the group is Wicca, Summum or any of the other hundreds of faiths in the United States, government officials are supposed to stay neutral toward religion. And that means - to invoke a virtue we learned in kindergarten - be fair to all. 4-26-07

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. Web: www.firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Posted by mikki at 05:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

U.S. can't alter 'dolphin-safe' tuna rules: court - Yahoo! News:


SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government has arbitrarily and capriciously sought to ease rules for foreign fisherman on "dolphin-safe" tuna, a U.S. federal appeals court ruled on Friday in upholding current standards.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to back the standards is the latest in a long-running dispute on what tuna sold in the United States can be labeled "dolphin safe" -- a designation that means tuna is fished using practices that protect dolphins.

Previous such decisions have angered Mexican and South American fishing industries.

The dispute involves the use of huge "purse seine" nets, which fisherman have used since the late 1950s to boost their capture of tuna swimming beneath dolphins. The nets get their name as they can be closed like a drawstring purse.

Dolphins, which are air-breathing mammals, can be easily spotted by fishermen when they surface for air.

As decades of such fishing dramatically lowered the numbers of certain species of dolphins, the U.S. Congress enacted a law in 1990 that said companies could not market tuna as "dolphin-safe" if they caught the fish by purposely surrounding dolphins with the nets.

Worrying that they could be shut out of the U.S. tuna market, officials in Latin America have since lobbied for a less stringent rule that would allow the "dolphin-safe" label if observers on the foreign boats had not seen dolphins killed or seriously injured.

The U.S. secretary of commerce has backed the rule change, but the 9th Circuit, reaffirming its 2001 ruling on the issue, said the U.S. effort was not based on proper scientific analysis on the impact to dolphins and was politically influenced. In the ruling, the court deemed the secretary's findings "arbitrary and capricious."

FOREIGN POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

"This evidence shows that the agency's decision-making process, which was devised to conduct a scientific analysis of the fishery's effect on dolphins, was influenced to at least some degree by foreign policy considerations rather than science alone," Chief Judge Mary Schroeder wrote for a three-judge panel.

The San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute and other environmental groups have led the litigation against the U.S. government and Latin American fishing interests in the case.

"As a practical matter ... there will be no change in tuna labeling standards absent new congressional directive," the court ruling said. "The label of 'dolphin-safe' will continue to signify that the tuna was not harvested with purse-seine nets, and that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured when the tuna were caught."

The court said such fishing practices have killed more than 6 million dolphins.

According to the Earth Island Institute, more than 90 percent of tuna canners in 51 countries worldwide follow "dolphin-safe" standards.

Earlier this year, the World Wildlife Fund warned that illegal fishing has critically depleted global stocks of tuna and urged nations to undertake measures to reduce the large numbers of dolphins and other species ensnared in tuna hooks and nets.

Posted by mikki at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wiccan symbol OK for soldiers' graves - CNN.com:
MADISON, Wisconsin (AP) -- The Wiccan pentacle has been added to the list of emblems allowed in national cemeteries and on government-issued headstones of fallen soldiers, according to a settlement announced Monday.

A settlement between the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Wiccans adds the five-pointed star to the list of "emblems of belief" allowed on VA grave markers.

Eleven families nationwide are waiting for grave markers with the pentacle, said Selena Fox, a Wiccan high priestess with Circle Sanctuary in Barneveld, Wisconsin, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The settlement calls for the pentacle, whose five points represent earth, air, fire, water and spirit, to be placed on grave markers within 14 days for those who have pending requests with the VA.

"I am glad this has ended in success in time to get markers for Memorial Day," Fox said.

The VA sought the settlement in the interest of the families involved and to save taxpayers the expense of further litigation, VA spokesman Matt Burns said. The agency also agreed to pay $225,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The pentacle has been added to 38 symbols the VA already permits on gravestones. They include commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie.

"This settlement has forced the Bush Administration into acknowledging that there are no second class religions in America, including among our nation's veterans," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the Wiccans in the lawsuit.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement also settles a similar lawsuit it filed last year against the VA. In that case, the ACLU represented two other Wiccan churches and three individuals.

VA-issued headstones, markers and plaques can be used in any cemetery, whether it is a national one such as Arlington or a private burial ground like that on Circle Sanctuary's property.

Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. Variations of the pentacle not accepted by Wiccans have been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil.

Posted by mikki at 02:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society: Guest Blogger: Our Faith-Based Justices:


Guest Blogger: Our Faith-Based Justices
by Geoffrey R. Stone, the Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago is the author of War and Liberty: An American Dilemma (2007) and a member of the ACS Board of Directors.

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, upheld the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting so-called “partial birth abortions” (properly described as “intact dilation and evacuation” or “intact D & E”) despite the absence of an exception to protect the health of the woman. Gonzales reversed an earlier decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, in which the Court had held a virtually identical state law unconstitutional, primarily because it failed to include an exception to protect the health of the woman.

In the majority’s view, the critical difference was that in enacting the federal law Congress made several findings to support the legislation. The majority accepted  those findings even though, as Justice Ginsburg observed in an unusually scathing dissent, those findings were nothing more than political nonsense. 

Among Congress’s clearly erroneous “findings” were its assertions that no medical schools provide instruction on intact D & E, that intact D & E is never necessary to safeguard the health of the woman, and that intact D & E is less safe than alternative procedures. Each of these “findings” was and is false. In fact, many medical schools, including Chicago, Northwestern, Yale, Columbia, teach intact D & E; there is a clear medical consensus that in particular circumstances intact D & E is necessary to protect the heath of the woman; and there is a clear medical consensus that in particular circumstances intact D & E is safer than the alternative procedures.

It is not unusual for the Supreme Court to give deference even to implausible legislative findings. But the findings must at least be rational and, when a law restricts a fundamental constitutional right, the findings must be almost unimpeachable. In this instance, every federal court that reviewed these congressional findings rightly described them unreasonable, unbalanced, polemical, and unsupported by the facts.

The five justices in the majority in Gonzales have put at risk the health of women who suffer from heart disease, uterine scarring, bleeding disorders, compromised immune systems, and certain pregnancy-related conditions, such as placenta previa and accreta, as well as those women carrying fetuses with certain abnormalities, such as severe hydocephalus. In all of these circumstances, and many others, the use of the intact D & E is necessary to ensure the health of the woman.

It is important to note that the prohibition of intact D & E has nothing to do with preserving the life of a fetus. The “partial birth abortion” law does not prohibit any abortions. Rather, it prohibits only a particular means of performing abortions. If the woman is willing to undergo a greater than necessary risk to her health, she may terminate her pregnancy by other, less safe, methods. She may, for example, have the fetus terminated by injection prior to extraction, or removed by cesarean, or extracted by non-intact D & E (which involves dismembering the fetus in utero). 

What, then, explains this decision? Here is a painfully awkward observation: All five justices in the majority in Gonzales are Catholic. The four justices who are either Protestant or Jewish all voted in accord with settled precedent. It is mortifying to have to point this out. But it is too obvious, and too telling, to ignore. Ultimately, the five justices in the majority all fell back on a common argument to justify their position. There is, they say, a compelling moral reason for the result in Gonzales. Because the intact D & E seems to resemble infanticide it is “immoral” and may be prohibited even without a clear statutory exception to protect the health of the woman.

By making this judgment, these justices have failed to respect the fundamental difference between religious belief and morality. To be sure, this can be an elusive distinction, but in a society that values the separation of church and state, it is fundamental. The moral status of a fetus is a profoundly difficult and rationally unresolvable question. As the Supreme Court has recognized for more than thirty years, when the fundamental right of a woman “to determine her life’s course” is at stake, it is not for the state -- or for the justices of the Supreme Court -- to resolve that question, and it is certainly not appropriate for the state or the justices to resolve it on the basis of one’s personal religious faith.

In 1972-73, I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk to Justice William Brennan, then the Court’s only Catholic justice. It was in that year the Court decided Roe v. Wade. Justice Brennan struggled in that case, as he struggled in earlier cases involving such issues as school prayers, to separate his personal religious views from his views as a justice. He joined the decision in Roe because he believed in the separation of church and state and because he was convinced that his religious views must be irrelevant to his responsibilities as a justice.
As the Court observed fifteen years ago, “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but than cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” It is sad that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito have chosen not to follow this example.

Posted by mikki at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Parents from Fairfax County Public Schools received the following email a few minutes ago:
----
Yesterday’s tragic incident at Virginia Tech involved several FCPS graduates who were
killed or wounded. You may see an increased presence of Fairfax County Police and Virginia
State Police at some of our schools today and possibly throughout the week. This police
presence is in response to the Virginia Tech incident. Please be assured that the police
are onsite to carry out their investigation and to ensure the safety of our students while
they are in school.
-----

So what do you think? Will that make our kids even more nervous? Will stepping up police presence in a county 2 hours away from the shootings do any good? Will their presence make kids feel more secure?

I don't know what to think. The nerves are still a bit too raw.

Posted by mikki at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Pacifica Woman Charged For Assaulting Gay Couple With Produce - News Story - KTVU San Francisco:


SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO -- A woman accused of targeting a gay couple with a selection of produce in Pacifica in March was arraigned Friday in a South San Francisco courtroom, the San Mateo County district attorney's office reported.
Tiffany Adler, 20, is accused of heaving an assortment of apples and asparagus at the couple from the interior of a van driving past them as they walked down a city street, according to the district attorney's office.
Adler also allegedly yelled a slur at the victims, the district attorney's office reported.
Both victims were struck by the fruits and vegetables, and police investigating the incident reportedly discovered a piece of asparagus in Adler's purse, according to the district attorney's office.
On Friday, Adler pleaded not guilty to misdemeanor hate crime and battery charges.
A jury trial is scheduled to begin July 2. Adler remains out of custody on her own recognizance, the district attorney's office reported.

Posted by mikki at 01:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ya know, I'm really hoping that there is some Swedish law being broken here so that they can order the extradition of this lunatic and his group of nutjobs and throw their sorry asses in jail for.... oh, how bout until rapture?

The Local - Princess Madeleine harassed by fanatical sect:


The Swedish Royal Court has confirmed that it has been receiving abusive faxes from the fanatical Westboro Baptist Church sect.

Led by minister Fred Phelps , the small group's hatred of the royal family and all things Swedish is linked directly to an equally virulent hatred of homosexuals.

Phelps praises homophobic crimes, including murder. When controversial Swedish minister Åke Green was convicted of inciting hatred of homosexuals following an anti-gay sermon, Phelps saw red and turned his attention to Sweden.

"You're doomed to spend eternity in hell," he said. "All you Swedes and your Swedish king and his family."

As part of the campaign Phelps launched the hateful website God Hates Sweden , which attacks the royal family and delights in the loss of Swedish lives in the 2004 tsunami disaster.

Princess Madeleine has been the main recipient of the sect's abuse, Expressen reports.

"I know that this is happening all the time. There have been strange faxes containing all sorts of terms of abuse," court spokeswoman Nina Eldh told the newspaper.

The court's lawyers have so far failed in their atempts to call a halt to the site's anti-Swedish hate campaign.

Expressen's attempts to secure a comment from the group were met with resistence from an agitated female representative.

"We hate Sweden! Don't call here again," she said.

Posted by mikki at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Speechless:

England: There are some stories I wish were April Fools' Day jokes, but this one is dated 2nd April, so it can't be:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.




It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.




There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

I am lost for words.

Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims—London Evening Standard, 2nd April 2007.

Posted by mikki at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)