Council Raises Fortune Telling Issue Again

Back to HomePage
Updated: 11:10 PM Jun 13, 2011 Council Raises Fortune Telling Issue Again Meridian, Miss. The Meridian City Council appears poised, for a second time, to rescind a ban on the practice of fortune telling inside the city limits. Posted: 4:14 PM Jun 13, 2011 Reporter: Chip Scarborough Email Address: chip.scarborough@wtok.com

Font Size:

The council approved the ban earlier this year, then failed to rescind it after the city attorney advised that it's unconstitutional.

Now, the council appears to be ready to change course, with some reservations.

After imposing a ban on fortune telling all together, the council is considering lifting that ban.

But Ward 5 councilman, Bobby Smith, said Monday, not so fast.

"It's just going to be a hard thing to get passed in Meridian, because I'm just not too fond of this. I never was," Smith said. "I wrote a letter to the people telling them I didn't think we needed to do it. And it's staying that way."

But council president, Jesse Palmer ,says it really shouldn't be up to council to decide if fortune tellers are allowed in Meridian.

"I think they believe very firmly in what they do, so it's not left for me to decide whether they're right, wrong, or otherwise," said council president, Jesse Palmer. "But it is against the law for us to prohibit them from coming into our city."

So, at Monday's work session, Palmer and other members of council discussed where in Meridian they will allow fortune tellers to locate if they, in fact, vote to lift the ban.

If overturned, fortune tellers could be located in a B-4 district, to be designated by council.

These businesses would also have to be at least 1,000 feet from any existing fortune telling facility, and 500 feet from any residence, child care facility, church, or school.

Latest Comments

Posted by: MYTH on Jun 20, 2011 at 02:52 PM

@ Citizen on Jun 18, 2011 at 02:33 PM in reply to MYTH: First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971). The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987). The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught: We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

Posted by: Citizen on Jun 18, 2011 at 02:33 PM

Lookmup some of these Supreme Court decisions and read them. They are ALL based on the consitutional principle od Seperation of church and state. Whether you like it or not, it is the supreme law of the land. Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968), Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985), Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987).

Posted by: Peabody on Jun 18, 2011 at 02:09 AM

As long as churches are fined for when what they preach turns out not to be not proven I agree. They are vauge on what they predict. Finding a quarter on the street means if they said your will come into unkown money is the truth. As far as Rose Hill it is known more for the Gyspies than anything else.

Click here to post or read all 55 comments.