[Vision2020] Mayor Anton La Vey

[Joan Opyr]

Dear Visionaries:

Let me give you an example of what Kai, Donovan, Pat, and Roger's 
interpretation of the establishment clause might mean should Anton La 
Vey be elected Mayor of Moscow.  (And why not Anton La Vey?  Sure, he's 
a Satanist, but he seems like a pro-development, big box kind of guy; 
I'm sure he buys his black candles at Wal-Mart.)

At the beginning of every city council meeting -- after, as Keely 
points out, the roll call but before the approval of the last meeting's 
minutes -- Mayor La Vey draws a pentagram on the floor, kills a white 
chicken, and offers up a prayer to the Prince of Darkness.  If the 
people in attendance don't want to participate in this Satanic ritual, 
they're free to leave.  A few ACLU types complain, of course, so in 
order to be fair, Mayor La Vey decides to open city council meetings to 
rotating prayers.  He invites the Catholics, the Baptists, the Mormons, 
the Jews, the Zorastrians, the Jains, the Hindus, the Muslims, the 
Buddhists, the Odinists, the Animists, Seven Drums, practitioners of 
Voodoo and Santeria, and, finally, the Unitarians, the Quakers, and the 
Ba'Hai to each take a turn.  (No one thinks to call the Atheists.  
They're far too controversial.)  Now, we have rotating prayers from 
rotating relgions.  But what have we accomplished?  We've officially 
introduced public prayer into our public city council meetings, but no 
one is happy.  In the first place, who wants to follow Mayor La Vey's 
Satanist act?  Certainly not the Baptists.  They're madder than the 
snake who married the garden hose.  The Catholics are miserable, the 
Muslims are offended, and the Jews are sick and tired of getting the 
token treatment -- first Chanukah cards and now this?  Thank you, 
Shiksa Mayor, but you can take our turn and give it to the Tibetans.  
Hello, Dalai!

My question is why go there?  Again, as Keely points out, individuals 
are free to pray anytime, anyplace, and anywhere without display or 
ostentation, so why should we want to introduce religion -- any 
religion -- into the workings of secular government?  What does 
publicly orchestrating a prayer to Jesus (or to Lucifer, or to one's 
dead ancestors, or to the sacred light, or to Kali, or to Thor) have to 
do with the business of city council?  If I thought Jesus would make 
*our* city council enforce its own zoning ordinances, I might be forced 
to reconsider the meaning of the establishment clause, but in the 
meantime, I'll stick with our "activist" judges who are, in my opinion, 
simply and clearly interpreting the First Amendment.  Religion is not 
the business of government, and that government is not the business of 
religion.  This interpretation of the establishment clause protects all 
of us, even the poor, benighted atheists.

Those of you who are busy pointing out that the "wall of separation" 
phrase is not in the Constitution are missing the point.  Jefferson 
used the phrase twice in letters to religious groups specifically to 
explain what he and the other authors of the First Amendment meant by 
creating the establishment clause, and turning to Jefferson for 
guidance on this issue seems to me to be far closer to a "strict 
constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution than relying on the 
blatherings of Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or the City Council of 
Great Falls, South Carolina.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.auntie-establishment.com