Hindus Protest Court Decision on Legislative Prayer

[Guest guest]

Hindu News Headlines for September 24, 2005

 

Hindus Protest Court Decision on Legislative Prayer

 

Published by Hinduism Today Gathered by Staff Reporter

 

TAMPA, FLORIDA,SEPTEMBER 24: Less than a year after

becoming the first Hindu American group to file an

amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the

United States Supreme Court, the Hindu American

Foundation (HAF) continued its legal campaign with

another brief in support of a petition for writ of

certiorari. The case, Simpson v. Chesterfield County,

involves legislative prayer.

 

A "writ of certiorari" is a request to the Court to review a case. The

latest HAF brief was supported by numerous Hindu organizations and

co-signed by the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Association of American

Indian Affairs as well as the Interfaith Alliance.

 

The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, has been

opening its meetings with invocations given by local clergy who

volunteer for the task. This practice began after the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled in the 1980's that legislative bodies could begin their

sessions with non-sectarian prayer without violating the Establishment

Clause of the United States Constitution.

 

Cynthia Simpson, a member of the Wiccan faith who wanted to lead

prayer, was told that she could not pray at the meetings because she

did not practice a religion "within the Judeo-Christian tradition."

The Wiccan faith is based on a belief in unity with the earth and the

idea that God is not separate from human. Ms. Simpson filed suit and

the lower court ruled in her favor ordering the County to change the

policy to "include all faiths or to stop using the policy

altogether."

 

The county appealed and a very conservative panel of judges from the

Fourth Circuit Court reversed the lower court holding that such

discrimination was permissible under current laws.

 

"This is perhaps the most blatant affirmation of

religious discrimination by any court to date," stated

Nikhil Joshi, Esq., member of the HAF Board ofs. "If allowed to stand, the Fourth Circuit's

decision will allow Chesterfield County to continue to

selectively dole out certain governmental privileges

to members of majority religions over others."

 

The HAF was represented by the Washington, D.C. law firm of Mayer,

Brown, Rowe and Maw, LLP. A team of attorneys working with HAF argued

in the brief that the Circuit Court's ruling contradicts the

Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing the

government to discriminate among religions.

 

Further, the decision also opens the door to unnecessary entanglement

of government and religion

by allowing government officials to make theological conclusions about

different traditions.

 

"Governments are extraordinarily poorly suited to be arbiters of

theology, and when they arrogate that role, nothing good can come of

it," the HAF brief argues.

 

"Not only are they certain to err, but they cannot help driving wedges

between religions and between denominations of the same religion."

 

The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the case sometime this

fall. Numerous civil rights law experts and advocacy groups are

predicting Simpson v. Chesterfield County will definitely be accepted

by the Supreme Court and placed on next year's docket.