Non Fluffy Wicca

Fortuneteller suing to overturn Montgomery ban on forecasting - Examiner.com:


WASHINGTON (Map, News) - A fortuneteller is suing Montgomery County after he learned he would not be allowed to open a shop in Bethesda because the county bans the business of forecasting the future.

Attorneys for Nick Nefedro, previously of Key West, Fla., say county officials violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and discriminated against his “Roma,” or Gypsy, culture when they refused to give him a business license. Montgomery code dating back to the early 1950s prohibits collecting cash for predicting the future.

“The underlying purpose is to prevent people from being taken advantage of, because it’s a scam,” Clifford Royalty, a lawyer in the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office, said.

In the Washington suburbs, however, Montgomery County is on its own — all other counties contacted by The Examiner allow fortunetellers to operate. The District does not even require a business license, but most other counties ask fortune-tellers to follow the same regulatory practices as other service providers.

Nefedro’s attorney Ed Amourgis said the county must show there “is a need for protection” rather than simply putting a “blanket ban” over the whole industry.

“This legislation, this policy is focused really on the Gypsies,” Amourgis said. “How is what he’s doing different than running a horoscope? Who are they to say that is not fraudulent but my client is?”

Montgomery County Council members met behind closed doors last week to discuss the lawsuit.

Council Members Nancy Floreen and Marc Elrich, who both sit on the economic development committee, said there did not seem to be support for repealing the measure.

“There are a lot more important things for us to worry about,” Floreen said. Elrich said the county should not encourage businesses “that take advantage of people.”

The penalty for fortunetelling in the county is a $250 fine.

A federal judge upheld a similar ban in Harford County in 2002, deferring to the county’s assessment of fortunetelling as “inherently deceptive” and citing a 1976 Supreme Court decision, albeit not in a fortunetelling case, that said “untruthful speech” is not protected.

Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area, said Nefedro had a “good case” and that very recent challenges to similar measures across the country have succeeded in overturning bans.

“Many churches say, if you do this you can reach the hereafter, if you don’t you’ll go to hell,” Spitzer said. “If that’s not predicting the future, what is?”

Posted by mikki at 06:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

firstamendmentcenter.org: commentary:


Suddenly this summer, the reality of same-sex couples lining up to get married in California has led some religious leaders to rethink their government role.

In a letter last month, Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California directed his clergy to “encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church.”

The bishop’s missive illustrates what a tangled web we have woven when clergy intone “by the power invested in me by the state.”

Because the Episcopal Church doesn’t sanction same-sex marriage — but gives the option of blessing the union — the bishop appears to be seeking a way to bless all couples while distancing the church from legal arrangements sanctioned by the state.

“There are a lot of benefits in getting out of the legal marriage business,” the Very Rev. Brian Baker told The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee in reaction to the bishop’s letter. “This way the clergy and the couple can focus on the spiritual blessings the church has to offer and not the political stuff.”

On the theological flip side, many conservative clergy worry that as agents of the state they will be pressured to perform same-sex marriages — or, in some other way, coerced into recognizing same-sex relationships in contradiction of church doctrine.

Maybe the bishop is on the right track: Separate secular from sacred by drawing a bright line between civil arrangements and the sacrament of marriage. Each state would limit itself to defining marriage as civil benefits for committed couples (as mandated by state law) — and each religious group would be free to define marriage according to the tenets of its faith.

The practice of dubbing clergy agents of the state is a vestige of history in Europe and some American Colonies when the established church determined who could be married. Disestablishment in America ended church monopoly over marriage — but left in place the dual role of clergy as religious leaders and state actors in the marriage arena.

Ending this church-state entanglement wouldn’t end the gay-marriage debate. But it might serve to reframe the issue by focusing on civic arguments for and against extending government benefits to same-sex couples. In my view, it isn’t the business of government to preserve the “sanctity of marriage.” Nor is it the business of government to dictate the meaning of marriage to any religious community.

At the same time, no religious group should be allowed to impose a religious definition of marriage on the rest of society. Various faiths in the United States define the sacrament of marriage in various ways. The establishment clause of the First Amendment should bar government officials from making public policy solely on the basis of a theological conviction about what constitutes “marriage.”

Of course, even if Americans agreed to separate civil and religious marriage, the patchwork of state solutions to the marriage conundrum would persist for some time.

Where civil same-sex marriage is prohibited, sacred ceremonies by religious groups that support gay marriage would still receive no legal recognition. And where same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal, those civil arrangements would still not be recognized by religious groups opposed to gay marriage. But at least decisions about civil arrangements in marriage would be determined without church dictating to state — and without state interfering with the religious freedom of churches, synagogues, mosques or temples.

When I first floated this idea four years ago (on the cusp of the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage), I thought the cleanest break would be to call state arrangements “civil unions” and religious ceremonies “marriage.” Now I’m not so sure that’s workable.

Removing the much-contested term “marriage” from the same-sex marriage debate would have obvious political advantages. But it might not go down well with the millions of religiously unaffiliated or nonreligious Americans who are likely to prefer being “married” to “civil unioned.”

It’s probably best to stay with “marriage,” but separate the civil from the religious by ending the role of clergy as agents of government. After all, for people of faith, marriage in a house of worship should be by the power invested by God — not by the state.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Web: firstamendmentcenter.org. E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Posted by mikki at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Australia to Phelps: bugger off!:

Australia: According to a gay website, Australian authorities have refused visas to members of Westboro Baptist Church who planned to picket World Youth Day.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokesperson for Westboro, told Same Same, If your government would give us a visa we would be there, but they won’t!

I haven't seen this story anywhere else other than on this Australian gay site, but the Westboro Baptist Church did issue a press release on July 12th indicating their intent to go to Australia [PDF]. This reads:

WBC to picket Catholic World Youth Day Sydney, Australia, July 20




Yes, these Roman Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals – all the way up to the Pope – have got a lot of shameless nerve, luring hundreds of kids to a sodomite island thousands of miles away, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, with their reputation of molesting kids! And what kind of idiots – escapees from the funny farm masquerading as parents – will let their kids go to Fantasy Island of the Fags, masquerading as a nation called Australia?




"GOD HATES AUSTRALIA" for criminalising gospel preaching about fags. Just to quote Leviticus 18:22, (Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is an abomination), will get you arrested in fag dominated Australia.

Now, the Phelps are US citizens, and could therefore go to Australia on an Electronic Travel Authority (Visitor) (Subclass 976), assuming picketing is considered to be tourism purposes (dubious at best). But they announced their intent 8 days before the event they planned to picket, and the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship recommends you are advised to apply for your ETA at least two (2) weeks before your proposed date of travel. They also note that there is a lot of demand for visas due to World Youth Day and suggest applying before June 1st! There are limitations with respect to criminal convictions, but the civil judgement against the church wouldn't fall foul of them. Perhaps the Australian authorities were concerned that they were trying to flee their financial obligations? Without any other sources, it's impossible to even guess.

Australia: A Fag Fantasy Island—Same Same, 18th July 2008; Walls close in on Phelpses—The Topeka Capital-Journal, 4th April 2008.

Posted by mikki at 09:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Four Claiming to Belong to Court Run by 'Yahweh' Indicted for Threats Against Judge:


Four Minnesota men who claim to belong to their own common law court where "Almighty Yahweh" has exclusive jurisdiction have been charged for allegedly trying to intimidate U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery in an effort to stop her from holding a criminal trial. The men were trying to stop the April trial of Robert Bonine Beale, the former millionaire chief executive of Comtrol Corp., who was subsequently convicted by a jury on conspiracy and tax evasion charges.

Posted by mikki at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

firstamendmentcenter.org: news:


DES MOINES, Iowa — Southwestern Community College has reached a financial settlement with a professor who was fired after telling students the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be taken literally.

Steve Bitterman taught world civilization at the Creston school. He was fired last September after students complained. Bitterman later sued for wrongful termination.

Patrick Smith, the school's lawyer, said the financial settlement should be completed this week. He did not disclose the amount of that settlement.

Bitterman's lawyer, Brad Schroeder, says academic freedom should have outweighed religious concerns.

"What was for him a purely objective, academic exercise in studying the religious beliefs of different Western civilizations became a group of fundamentalist students taking exception when it came time for their God to be put under the microscope," Schroeder said today.

Bitterman's case received widespread attention. He garnered support from the American Humanist Association, which says that people who eschew organized religion can lead ethical lives and contribute to the greater good.

Bitterman taught on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in Norfolk, Va., this summer through Central Texas College's Instructor At Sea program for sailors. He said he used the same textbook from his previous classes. Bitterman is scheduled to join the ship again in the Persian Gulf, but has also applied to work at other community colleges.

Posted by mikki at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Wild Hunt Blog: A modern Pagan perspective.:


After two years of investigations, Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, and his deputy, Ginger Cruz, have been cleared of fraud and abuse charges that were lodged by former employees of the watchdog organization.

"On July 3, federal prosecutors alerted the office of Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen that a grand jury declined to indict him or deputy Ginger Cruz. Last week, on July 9, the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency similarly cleared him and Cruz of any administrative charges stemming from the accusations. The executive branch council was created to investigate allegations of misconduct by inspectors general at federal agencies ... "I always had faith that we'd be cleared of the allegations," Cruz said in an interview Wednesday. "We knew there was no basis to them." Cruz described the investigations dating back to 2006 as "very thorough." She said it combed through all of her e-mail, and multiple people were interviewed for it."

This story first came to my attention in December of last year, after accusations against Cruz claimed that she was a Wiccan who sexually harassed her co-workers, and threatened to cast spells on those who crossed her.

"Cruz reportedly told employees that she was a Wiccan who could cast spells on people, and said she preferred hiring young “hunks” to work in the office. She is also accused of propositioning junior employees in a crude fashion, once even proposing a threesome."

Cruz has all along denied any wrongdoing, and that the accusations of witchcraft were "ludicrous". I felt that the emphasis on witchcraft and sexual improprieties seemed suspicious. Almost stereotypical.

"...it seems strange to me that "hexes" and her Wiccan religion were mentioned at all. Could it be that Cruz was simply too open with her religious preferences in an all-too-Christian military environment? Leaving aside the charges of cooking the books, doesn't it seem a bit too convenient (almost stereotypical in a male-fantasy sort of way) that the the young female Witch would go around propositioning three-ways with men and claiming to put hexes on people (no doubt on men who would refuse her sexual wiles)?"

Whether Cruz was indeed a Wiccan, or simply a woman branded "witch" in an often sexist and overtly Christian military will most likely never be known. Whatever the truth, this represents not only a vindication for Cruz, who can now put this painful time behind her, but a victory for religious minorities and Pagans working for the government. Perhaps more Pagans working in the military and in governmental positions can come out of the "broom closet" knowing that slanders of malicious spellwork, or lascivious behavior, will not stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by mikki at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the DC area, and wish to see the Krazy Kestra pretend to be a Shakespearean actor? Now's your chance. Two more shows available.

Coriolanus | DC Theatre Scene . Washington's liveliest theatre web site:


Coriolanus 
Reviewed by Steven McKnight
Coriolanus is one of the more difficult Shakespeare plays due to its static plot and an unlikeable protagonist.  While the Rude Mechanicals don’t entirely work it out, their streamlined modern production is competent and entertaining. 

Alan Duda both directs and stars in the production as the proud Roman general who encounters difficulties when he refuses to kowtow to the populist rabble.  His performance is generally convincing although less facile than it could be.  The cast is uneven and some of the acting is a little broad, but the show includes fine performances by Michelle Trout (his fierce mother Volumnia), Mike Galizia (the Roman nobleman Menenius Agrippa), and Joshua Engel (the Volscian general Aufidius). 

A few modern satirical touches enliven the piece, from the obvious laugh-getters (e.g., the “Volscian Threat Level Indicator”) to the more subtle focus on fickle public opinion in a political setting.   The use of modern clothing and weaponry (e.g., fatigues and plastic guns) and other technology give the production a little added twist.  Overall, though, this production is basically straightforward Shakespeare. 

If you’ve never seen the rarely-performed Coriolanus or you enjoy seeing alternative production styles applied to Shakespeare, you may want to include this show on your Fringe schedule.  If you don’t normally fancy Shakespearean tragedy, this production won’t change your view. 

Running Time:  75 minutes
Tickets:  Coriolanus
Remaining Shows:  Sun, July 20 at 2 . Sat, July 26 at 7:30
Where:  Warehouse Next Door, 1017 7th St NW

Posted by mikki at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination - CNN.com:


KANSAS CITY, Kansas (CNN) -- Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was raised Baptist.

Like many Christians, he said grace before dinner and read the Bible before bed. Four years ago when he was deployed to Iraq, he packed his Bible so he would feel closer to God.

He served two tours of duty in Iraq and has a near perfect record. But somewhere between the tours, something changed. Hall, now 23, said he no longer believes in God, fate, luck or anything supernatural.

Hall said he met some atheists who suggested he read the Bible again. After doing so, he said he had so many unanswered questions that he decided to become an atheist.

His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety. Watch why Hall says his lack of faith almost got him killed »

In March, Hall filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others. In the suit, Hall claims his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment were violated and suggests that the United States military has become a Christian organization.

"I think it's utterly and totally wrong. Unconstitutional," Hall said.

Hall said there is a pattern of discrimination against non-Christians in the military.

Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. In another incident, when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, "Do you believe in Jesus now?"

Hall isn't seeking compensation in his lawsuit -- just the guarantee of religious freedom in the military. Eventually, Hall was sent home early from Iraq and later returned to Fort Riley in Junction City, Kansas, to complete his tour of duty.

He also said he missed out on promotions because he is an atheist.

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.

Michael Weinstein, a retired senior Air Force officer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is suing along with Hall. Weinstein said he's been contacted by more than 8,000 members of the military, almost all of them complaining of pressure to embrace evangelical Christianity.

"Our Pentagon, our Pentacostalgon, is refusing to realize that when you put the uniform on, there's only one religious faith: patriotism," Weinstein said.

Religious discrimination is a violation of the First Amendment and is also against military policy. The Pentagon refused to discuss specifics of Hall's case -- citing the litigation. But Deputy Undersecretary Bill Carr said complaints of evangelizing are "relatively rare." He also said the Pentagon is not pushing one faith among troops.

"If an atheist chose to follow their convictions, absolutely that's acceptable," said Carr. "And that's a point of religious accommodation in department policy, one may hold whatever faith, or may hold no faith."

Weinstein said he doesn't buy it and points to a promotional video by a group called Christian Embassy. The video, which shows U.S. generals in uniform, was shot inside the Pentagon. The generals were subsequently reprimanded.

Another group, the Officers' Christian Fellowship, has representatives on nearly all military bases worldwide. Its vision, which is spelled out on the organization's Web site, reads, "A spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform empowered by the Holy Spirit."

Weinstein has a different interpretation.

"Their purpose is to have Christian officers exercise Biblical leadership to raise up a godly army," he says.

But Carr said the military's position is clear.


"Proselytizing or advancing a religious conviction is not what the nation would have us do and it's not what the military does," Carr said.

The U.S. Justice Department is expected to respond to Hall's lawsuit this week. In the meantime, he continues to work in the military police unit at Fort Riley and plans to leave as soon as his tour of duty expires next year.

Posted by mikki at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dad charged with bride's 'honor killing':


A Pakistani man has been charged with killing his 25-year-old daughter in Georgia because she wanted out of an arranged marriage, police said. Chaudhry Rashid was arrested early Sunday after his wife called police and officers found Sandeela Kanwal dead in an upstairs bedroom of their home.

Posted by mikki at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)