WASHINGTON (ABP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that a Virginia county can exclude a member of a minority religion from offering prayers at county board meetings — even though adherents of “Judeo-Christian” religions are allowed to lead invocations.
In a unanimous ruling April 14, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against county resident Cynthia Simpson, whom officials denied the opportunity to offer prayers at meetings of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors.
Simpson is a practitioner of Wicca, a neo-pagan religion that she has described as interchangeable with witchcraft. She is a leader in a Wiccan congregation in the suburban county near Richmond. When she asked to be put on a list of those who could lead invocations at board meetings, the county attorney told her she would not be allowed, claiming that “Chesterfield's non-sectarian invocations are traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Simpson, working with attorneys from a pair of civil-liberties groups, sued the county. A federal district judge in Richmond sided with her, ruling in 2003 that the practice unconstitutionally discriminated against religions that do not stem from the dominant Western monotheistic traditions.
But the latest ruling reverses that decision, citing the Supreme Court's 1985 Marsh vs. Chambers decision allowing “non-sectarian” legislative prayers before the Nebraska legislature. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, authoring the 4th Circuit's opinion, said the content of the prayers Chesterfield County officials allowed was broad enough, and the fact that Simpson was barred from offering one was immaterial to the case.
“The Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, not a single faith but an umbrella covering many faiths,” Wilkinson wrote. “We need not resolve the parties' dispute as to its precise extent, as Chesterfield County has spread it wide enough in this case to include Islam. For these efforts, the County should not be made the object of constitutional condemnation.”
Wilkinson has been widely rumored to be among the candidates for a Supreme Court appointment, should any slots on that body come open before the end of President Bush's term.
The judge went on to say that the Marsh decision means governments have wider latitude in dealing with religious expression in legislative contexts without offending the First Amendment clause that prohibits government establishment of religion than in other contexts — such as public schools.
Wilkinson continued: “The Chesterfield policy of clergy selection may not encompass as much as Simpson would like, and were it to be applied beyond the 'unique' and limited context of legislative prayer, it may not encompass as much as [another Supreme Court decision on government-sponsored prayers] would require. But that context is all important, for if Marsh means anything, it is that the Establishment Clause does not scrutinize legislative invocations with the same rigor that it appraises other religious activities.”
A Baptist expert on church-state issues said the case was wrongly decided. “The clearest command of the Establishment Clause, and even [of] fundamental fairness, is that the state must not prefer one religion over another,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.
Walker also said the suit is indicative of the problems with using public prayers to solemnize government activities. “This case points out the difficulty with public legislative prayer in a religiously pluralistic society,” he said. “The government always is involved in picking and choosing.”
Simpson may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or ask for the full 4th Circuit to re-hear the case. In a similar case last year, another three-judge panel of the same court outlawed a South Carolina town's practice of allowing only Christian prayers at town council meetings.
A spokesman for one of the groups that helped Simpson file her lawsuit, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said April 18 that Simpson and her attorneys had not yet officially made the decision to appeal or ask for a re-hearing. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Simpson has said she would welcome an appeal.