Moon Phase: Waxing gibbous
Weather: Perpetually cloudy

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear the appeal of a Wiccan priestess who is suing a county board in Virginia for not allowing her to do an opening prayer at their meetings DESPITE the fact that clergy from major religions are invited to do so. In fact, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors allows only Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergy to pray at their meetings. That is, no Hindus, no Buddhists, no Sikhs, no anything other than the three major religions.

The U.S. District Court ruled the practice unconstitutional, but when the county appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling was overturned. And now that SCOTUS has refused to hear Simpson's appeal of that ruling, there's not much else we can do.

First of all, I don't think they should have opening prayers at all; it's a government meeting for Christ's sake, it should be kept secular. Why do they need to pray? How is that relevant to what they're doing there? All it does is marginalize people who don't belong to those religions, and we are a significant minority in this country, even in Chesterfield County, I'm sure.

Second of all, has the Supreme Court even read the fucking Bill of Rights? Since when is it constitutional to promote one group of religions over others? How can a government institution defend such an obvious case of religious discrimination, and how did the Supreme Court ever agree that they had the right to do that? This is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against. A large number of people came to this country to escape religious discrimination, and the Founding Fathers were well aware of that. They meant for this country to be a place of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. And no, that does not just mean Christian freedom, or even Yahweh-worshipping freedom, but all religions. And, by extension, freedom for those who are not religious.

I think part of the problem here is the misunderstanding of the word "witch". That word just conjures up so many stupid stereotypes and misconceptions for most Americans, and I really and truly believe that this issue would have been treated differently if it had been a Buddhist wanting to pray there. Which is not to say, necessarily, that the court case would have turned out any differently, because it may well have ended up the same. But I think that more people would be upset about this, and it would have gotten more media attention.

After Lawrence vs. Texas, I was feeling hopeful about the court system. It really signaled a change in the way civil liberties are regarded in this country, and it made me feel like anything was possible. But now I'm left wondering if we've really made any progress since 1692.