Wiccan takes on board's prayer policy

BY MEREDITH FISCHER
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Oct 09, 2002

Fellow witches are rallying around Bon Air Wiccan Priestess Cyndi Simpson and her quest to lead an invocation at Chesterfield County's Board of Supervisors meeting.

Simpson, a member of the Reclaiming Tradition of Wicca, was recently rejected by the county when she asked to be added to its list of religious leaders who perform such prayers.

This has prompted witches, other religious leaders and civil-rights activists to speak out, saying Chesterfield is violating their right to religious freedom. [...]

In the letter, Micas said the county's invocations are "traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian tradition." [...]

As a Pagan, stories like this tend to catch my attention.  Personally, I think that offering any kind of prayer at the start of a council meeting or other governmental session is inappropriate, because the government is supposed to maintain a neutral position towards religion in general, which goes beyond not picking or establishing an "official" religion, but also includes the idea that the government are not supposed to sho a preference for being religious over being non-religious. 

If, however, councils and other governmental bodies are going to insist on having a prayer to open their sessions, then they need to be open to representatives of any religion represented in their community, including ones they don't follow, understand or necessarily approve of. As the quote above shows, however, they fail to understand even the basic concept that, as a governmental body, they cannot endorse one faith or family of faiths over another.  To only allow prayers to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian traditions is very much establishing an officially approved-of religion.

Another very interesting article by St. Parker at .u.n.f.o.l.d.e.d. .r.e.q.u.i.e.m., this one looking at issues related to George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Iraq, Oil and weapons.  Very well documented. 
9:55:33 PM  pluck a string []  

CIA Boss Downplays Notion Iraq Poses Imminent Threat

Wednesday, October 9, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Contradicting assertions by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat, the director of the CIA told lawmakers Tuesday that Iraq "for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States."

But CIA Director George Tenet said that if Saddam comes to believe that he cannot prevent a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or chemical and biological weapons."

I have to wonder if this isn't the point.  Bush has been rattling his saber for quite a long time, now, moving closer and closer to an invasion.  He's even said that he things war "may" be inevitable.  It makes perfect sense to think that if Saddam Hussein became convinced that we're going to attack him no matter what, he might try to make a pre-emptive strike against our own pre-emptive strike. 

If he did, of course, that would simply prove Bush's dire predictions right, wouldn't it?  At that point, there'd be no question about our going in and attacking Saddam - of trying to take him out and replace him with someone we like better.  The justificaion for war would be handed to Bush in a nice little gift-wrapped package. 

I hope this isn't the game he's playing, but with the rhetoric getting hotter and hotter, it sometimes feels like his whole point at this time is to provoke Saddam into making some kind move so that he can give the whole world a bit "I told you so" and march in with the full backing of the international community. If that's the case, then our only hope is that Saddam is smarter and more patient than Bush, and will hold off on taking any action against us, regardless of Bush's rhetoric.  I'm not sure I feel confident relying on that...

Signs of Intelligence: Web Broadcasting Royalty Deal Reached. Web broadcasters are no longer doomed... [Morons Dot Org]

-=<*>=-

Web royalty rate deal reached

Sun Oct 6, 7:10 PM ET
By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON (The Hollywood Reporter) --- Negotiators for the record companies and webcasters reached a deal Sunday on a royalty payment scheme for music streamed over the Internet that carves out a lower rate for small webcasters, sources close to the negotiations said.  [...]

While details of the deal were sketchy Sunday, it appears that the record companies made several concessions that would allow webcasters that aren't part of the big broadcast and Internet conglomerates to pay a significantly lower rate, the sources said.

Back on September 23rd, I had posted about the Internet Radio Fairness Act, legislation that was proposed to help ensure that the smaller Internet Radio stations would be able to continue broadcasting by establishing royalty rates that would be more inline with what traditional radio stations pay, as opposed to the rates proposed by the Copyright Royalty Arbitration Panel which were several times higher, and would have driven most of the Internet stations out of business.

Today a settlement has been reached that will allow smaller stations to pay lower rates, based on a percentage of their income, as opposed to a rate based on a per-song per-listener basis. It's good to see that common sense won out for a change.  While this agreement is only slated to last for 2 years, hopefully it will set a standard that is workable and can be extended or built upon for the future.

Decatur OKs sexual orientation protection

Advocate: Issue could surface in Peoria

October 8, 2002

By JAN DENNIS
of the Associated Press

DECATUR - After more than two hours of emotional debate, the City Council approved an ordinance Monday night that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

With the vote, Decatur joined a growing list of Illinois cities that have adopted a gay rights ordinance. [...]

I'm glad to see more and more cities adopting ordinances to protect people from being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, but I've always had a hard time understanding why it should even be an issue.

This country has, as part of it's foundational concept, the idea that the government cannot establish any kind of "official" religion. What does that have to do with not discriminating against gays? Well, in the vast majority of cases, the reason a person or group of people are opposed to homosexuality is because their religion teaches that it is wrong. There are very few non-religious reasons - as least very few that I'm aware of - for opposing homosexuality.

Laws like the "Defense of Marriage Act" are passed because marriage is "intended" to be the union of a male and a female. Intended by whom? Most will tell you by God. If that's the case, then the DoMA is a law intended to enforce a religious view of marriage - legislating a religious belief and imposing it on the entire nation. They're not supposed to be able to do that. Most objections to homosexuality in general are along the lines of it being "offensive", "immoral", "in defiance of nature" or other such concept - all of which go back, again, to the religious view of how love and sexuality should work.

Protecting the rights of gays and lesbians do not provide them with special rights. It just ensures that they will be treated like every other person, which is appropriate since that's exactly what they are -- another person. As such, they should be entitle to hold any job for which they are the most qualified person and rent or purchase any home or apartment that they can afford.

One thing we seem to overlook at times is that religious discrimination works in two directions. You can be discriminated against because of what you believe, or you can be discriminated against because of what the person you are dealing with believes. Neither is right and neither should be condoned in the public arena or in publicly-accessible places.

No one has to like or be friends with someone that they have a problem with because they don't fit in with that person's religious beliefs, but they shouldn't be allowed to deny them things that they would otherwise be able to obtain, either. Jobs, housing, access, benefits... all of those things should be determined solely on relevent merits -- qualities and abilities that directly relate to the ability to do the job, afford or maintain the housing, obtaining the access or earn the benefits in question.