The Noble Pagan Forums - McMaster vows to waste more taxpayer money with misguided legal battles

Originally Posted by Chris Haire on Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:06 PM

You may not remember Darla Wynne, the Wiccan who sued the town of Great Falls, S.C., over the invocation that began each town council meeting, but S.C. Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Henry McMaster does.

And according to a new video from the McMaster campaign, the AG would take on folks like Wynne, the ACLU, and anybody else who thinks that the separation of church and state should, well, stay a separation.

Even worse, McMaster doesn't seem to mind that any such defense would be a waste of taxpayer money, based on the Wynne case and the recent "I Believe" license plate ruling. He simply wants your vote in the Republican primary.

According to our very own Will Moredock, this is how the Wynne case went down:

In 2001, Wynne, a practicing Wiccan, sued the town of Great Falls over the invocation at the beginning of town council meetings. Wynne asked that the prayers not be delivered "in the name of Jesus Christ" or that alternative faiths be heard at invocation. She offered to lead such a prayer, in her capacity as high priestess of a group of about 35 Wiccans in the area. The Chester County town of 2,100 refused her request, and Wynne went to federal court. But with the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union, she prevailed over the next four years in the U.S. District Court and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The town appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. The council ceased praying in the name of a Christian deity and was even ordered to pay Wynne's legal expenses.

Oh. And in case anybody needs to be reminded: Henry McMaster was, until very recently, a member of a white folks-only country club.

****************
Note from CR: If you watch the interview video on the site linked for this guy, he argues that the case the wiccan high priestess brought against the city was about the fact that they prayed to Jesus. I would like to clarify in that the case, if you read the documents, was brought against the council not because they prayed to Jesus ... but that they prayed during a government sactioned meeting period ... and the judge ruled against the council and in favor of keeping church and state separate.

I'm actually doing a paper of the effect of Religion in Schools.

I personally advocate our First Amendment and expect no less. I dislike how they 'slip' religion into schools and call it 'extra curricular' activities.

Can you cite an example of this? I have no problem with extra-curricular religious activities as long as the following conditions are met:

1) The activity is student led and organized without affiliation to an outside organization

2) The groups in question allow any student to join, regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.

3) No favoritism is shown to the members of these groups by teachers or staff.

The first amendment allows students to practice any religion they wish, but also prevents the school from dictating which religion that should be. This of course would apply to any public school or other school that receives federal funding.

Well, let's not forget about the pledge of allegiance, said at many school functions and elsewhere, which reads "one nation, under God"

Just sayin'....

For the safety of students, parents and teachers, all religious activities need to be kept away from the school no matter what.

Why?

Because lets say you have a group that gathers together for Bible study and the other for the Quran-- you can not promise those students studying the Quran they won't be harassed, discriminated against or even safe depending on the geographic location.

And further more you're also asking for complete and total unbiased treatment? There is no such thing in the world of Religion and Politics.

Well, they are obviously talking about Horus, aren't they?

So should they ban PE because overweight and/or out of shape students could be harassed or discriminated against? (For the record, my GPA in high school would have been much better if they had.) Should they ban minorities from high schools because they might be harassed or discriminated against?

Or should they use this as a teaching moment that part of living in a pluralistic diverse society is minding your own @#$#@$ business?

I'm not trying to be mean here, it is just that I believe the first amendment applies to all citizens, not just ones we agree with.

Well, the "one nation under God" portion of the pledge was put there due to a campaign waged by the Knights of Columbus, which is a Catholic men's fraternal order. As full disclosure, I was a member of the Knights of Columbus at one time.

That said, I don't think the pledge is useful and I believe it offensive on many levels. Ultimately you are declaring your loyalty to a piece of cloth; I would rather people declared their loyalty to a piece of paper, namely the U.S. Constitution. The pledge replaces true patriotism with mere symbolism.

Don't get me wrong, I think the flag is very symbolic of many positive American ideals; but I think it more appropriate to declare your love for your country, and your loyalty for your fellow citizens.

Sorry if this seems rantish, it is just something I feel strongly about.

You missed my point. My entire point is Religion and Government need to stay away from each other period. Overweight children get picked on just as much as skinny children, or jocks, or goths or whatever label you so choose to use to make a point.

No child will go throughout life without being a target to SOMEONE-- however we can attempt to prevent ONE form of discrimination and harassment by following our first amendment.

This isn't about singling out-- this is about keeping to our Amendments.

Wasn't the "under God" segment placed there in the 1950s?