Religious Freedom And the Law? (priest, preacher, pagan, pray)

[BrandonE]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Because its use in the review clearly alludes to the tyrannical Nazi policies during its heyday in Germany.

I honestly didn't even notice the presence of the word till you pointed it out, but it's use does generally have that connotation. Godwinned?

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Has a principle of equality been violated here? Is the Fourth Circuit trying to pull a fast one on us?

It seems so. Sitting here in England, I get the distinct impression that "if it's Christian, it's P.C"; if not.............tough luck

[d.]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

it's use does generally have that connotation.

i'm not sure i agree at all. we say 'verboten' all the time without it having anything to do with nazi germany. precisely the way we say 'OK' or 'yes sir'.

'heil' 'führer' or 'lebensraum' have nazi connotations, sure. but verboten, no. it's just a loan word.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by il divino

i'm not sure i agree at all. we say 'verboten' all the time without it having anything to do with nazi germany. precisely the way we say 'OK' or 'yes sir'.

'heil' 'führer' or 'lebensraum' have nazi connotations, sure. but verboten, no. it's just a loan word.

Verboten on this side of the pond is used in our literature and media (movies, TV, etc) with that connotation. Not many folks over here use German loan words - and in the context of law, it's even more clear in this case that it has a Nazi connotation.

[Revasser]

That's weird. "Verboten" is just a run-of-the-mill loan word down here as well.

Heck, I've even seen it used on perfectly innocuous safety signs. Just down the road, a gate to the main telephone exchange has "verboten" in big red letters.

[Green Gaia]

All most Americans know about Germany is Nazis and VW cars. So of course, the average American sees a German word and thinks, "Nazis!"

Anyway, can we please get back to the cases cited in the OP?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

In the first case, it ruled that a school had to allow students to pass out proselytizing Christian literature, while in the second case, it ruled that a board of supervisors could refuse to allow a Wiccan to lead prayers before board meetings.

Depending on the details, this may not be as contradictory as it seems on the surface.

In the instance of passing out proselytizing literature, that might be viewed as a restriction of speech. If a student is standing in the halls not obstructing anyone, and offering literature that someone can take or leave as they please, and is in no way harassing anyone, that might be okay (though I'd be taking a hard look at just how that might be "harassment" depending on circumstances).

otoh, in the case of offering up any prayer, it might be considered the school promoting religion if students are required to be at the event in question.

Now, if in the case where the Wiccan was to offer a prayer that had, in the past, members of other religions who were allowed to do the same, then that's a huge problem.

But these are two situations and, depending on the details, might be more comparing apples and oranges.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Booko

otoh, in the case of offering up any prayer, it might be considered the school promoting religion if students are required to be at the event in question.

Now, if in the case where the Wiccan was to offer a prayer that had, in the past, members of other religions who were allowed to do the same, then that's a huge problem.

Just to clarify, that wasn't concerning a school meeting. It was a county Board of Supervisors meeting and other clergy (Judeo-Christian) were allowed to give prayer, but the Wiccan was refused.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Maize

Just to clarify, that wasn't concerning a school meeting. It was a county Board of Supervisors meeting and other clergy (Judeo-Christian) were allowed to give prayer, but the Wiccan was refused.

Thanks, Maize. Nope, in that case, it's nothing but the advancement of one particular religion, which at a public *gov't* meeting, should not be allowed. (But I can't say I'm surprised it happened. )

Quite frankly, it's exactly what I would expect around here.