Should inmates have
religious freedom?
The U.S. Supreme Court this
week upheld a federal law
requiring state prisons to
accommodate the religious
affiliations of inmates
(Cutter vs. Wilkinson).
Prison officials have
opposed the requirement. Do
you think Congress should be
able to pass laws that
create protections for
inmates' religious
practices?
I agree with Tuesday's
unanimous Supreme Court vote
to uphold the federal law
requiring states to
accommodate prisoners'
religious practices. After
all, the 1st Amendment to
our Constitution documents
our right to practice the
religion of our choice. That
makes it a federal issue.
While I'm not certain the
rehabilitation claims made
by clergy are true, I think
it is consistent with the
religious freedom enjoyed in
this country to allow those
incarcerated to follow their
individual beliefs. As long
as security needs are met
and the governmental
institution does not endorse
religion or promote any
given belief structure, the
separation of church and
state is not violated.
That said, I wish to explore
why the United States has a
higher percentage of its
population in jail and
prisons than any other
industrialized nation.
Although violent crime has
been dropping for several
years, incarceration rates
continue to climb. Mandatory
minimum sentences, the
three-strikes law, the Bush
administration's push to
aggressively pursue the war
on drugs and reductions in
parole and early release
have resulted in over 2
million Americans being
locked up. Over half of
those were convicted of
nonviolent crimes. Many are
mentally ill. A much higher
percentage are African
American and Latino --
higher than their
percentages in the general
population.
All this illustrates the
failure of our society to
adequately provide resources
that allow everyone to
maximize his potential. The
people in jail aren't paying
taxes or volunteering.
Little mental health
treatment is available. A
recent news story noted the
dismal state of healthcare
for the country's aging
prison population.
There's a lot wrong with our
criminal justice system.
Whether prisoners can hold
prayer meetings or wear
religious head coverings is
just a distraction from
dealing with the real
issues.
SHARON WEISMAN
Atheist
Glendale
Five years ago, a very broad
coalition of religious
groups came together to
advocate for the passage of
the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA), and I am very
pleased that just this week
the Supreme Court
unanimously ruled that this
law is constitutional.
Congress' law did not
protect inmates' religious
practices so much as it
assured them that, except
for only extreme cases where
the state or federal
interest is demonstrated in
banning certain practices,
any religious group's
expression would be accorded
the same protection of
religion enjoyed by those
not in prison.
What is reassuring to me is
that the government is
precluded from ruling on the
validity of any religious
belief or sect that
manifests itself inside a
prison. Rather, prison
officials must demonstrate
that the state has a
compelling interest in
limiting certain behaviors,
such as the use of
controlled substances that
some religions advocate, or
any other behavior that
should be restricted from
the lives of inmates.
In the absence of any such
demonstration, inmates
should be permitted to
worship as their consciences
dictate. One's incarceration
should not be an impediment
to true religious fervor and
expression.
RABBI JONATHAN BIATCH
Temple Sinai of Glendale
Can and should religious
expressions be restricted in
a restricted facility?
The 1st Amendment of our
Constitution is at the
center of this argument.
Surely those skilled at laws
will weigh in.
For us in the religious
community, the issues must
go beyond the debating of
laws. Rather, we need to
address the point of
societal evolution we find
ourselves in today, where we
understand everything and
anything that deals with
human inquiry and expression
as models for religion.
Hence, racism, intolerance,
ethnic superiority, can all
hide under the
classification of religious
thought; therefore, there
arises an expectation for
laws and government to
protect a person's right to
these expressions.
Holy Scripture clearly
designates that there is one
final purpose and expression
that is at the center of our
existence. It is, very
simply, love. It should be
used as a measuring tool to
gauge our motives and
actions. In love there can
be no superiority, racism,
intolerance or any system
that diminishes the value of
another's life.
As an Armenian priest, I
bear witness to the history
of the Armenians, who have
spent centuries imprisoned,
even in their ancestral
homelands.
During that time, it was
their expressions of faith
that allowed them to survive
against the wave of
intolerance and inhumanity.
The freedom to practice
their faith was not
guaranteed by any
legislation; rather it was
the innate expression of
love that was transferred
through the generations.
That was what maintained the
sense of dignity in the face
of brutality.
Whether in prison or in the
most posh environments of
our communities, where
humans are searching for any
expression that might
elevate their personhood
from their already stripped
identity, religion can and
should be offered as the
means for self-definition.
And yes, we do have a
responsibility to ensure
that love becomes the
highest ideal and goal of
what is called religion.
FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN
Armenian Church Youth
Ministries
In the Bahai faith, we obey
the laws of the country in
which we reside.
If the government passes
laws allowing prisoners to
have specific religious
freedoms while incarcerated,
so be it.
Religion needs to be
defined.
Since freedom of religion is
a tenet in this country, it
would appear that the
enactment of such religious
privileges will create chaos
and be cost prohibitive.
A teaching of the Bahai
faith is that in the future
people of the world will
abhor crime of any sort and
thereby cut down on the
number and size of prisons.
Congress has the right to
pass any laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court is
there to rule on the
constitutionality of laws
passed by Congress.
BARBARA CRAMER
Secretary
Bahai Faith Glendale
Maybe we should look at it
this way: Does our
government really have the
right to prohibit imprisoned
American citizens from
exercising their religion?
If there are no compelling
safety or security issues
involved, the prisoner's
religious rights should be
protected as much as is
reasonably possible.
Jesus Christ showed us how
to worship God at any time,
regardless of whether we're
incarcerated. He explained
to the Samaritan woman that
those who worship God must
do so in spirit and truth.
Christians don't have to
worry about where we are or
what we use in order to
worship. Worship is
expressed in a heart of love
for God that acknowledges
the truth he has revealed
about himself.
While the apostle Paul and
Silas were visiting the city
of Philippi they were
beaten, imprisoned and even
put in chains simply for
casting a demon out of a
girl. Yet because their
worship didn't depend on
their circumstances, they
could pray and sing praises
to God. He answered with an
earthquake and set them
free.
Worship is a freedom
guaranteed by God to anyone,
anywhere, who seeks him in
spirit and truth.
PASTOR JON BARTA
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank
Yes, I do think Congress
should be able to pass laws
that create protections for
inmates' religious
practices.
While the issue is fraught
with headaches for prison
officials, inmates are still
citizens who should have the
religious rights that those
of us on the outside have.
It may be tempting to say to
those who have broken the
laws of our nation that they
don't deserve the religious
rights that law-abiding folk
get, but where do we get the
right to decide that a
certain segment of the
population now has no
rights?
From a religious
perspective, we are on shaky
ground if we try to insist
that inmates have somehow
sinned and therefore have
forfeited their religious
rights while they are
incarcerated. Romans 3:23
reminds us that all have
sinned and fallen short of
God's glory. To me, it is
gratifying that a
conservative, Republican
senator, Utah's Orrin Hatch,
and a liberal, Democratic
senator, Massachusetts' Ted
Kennedy -- who are personal
friends, by the way -- are
the two main sponsors of the
bill. It's time to say,
"Hallelujah," when
conservatives and liberals
can agree on anything, let
alone a religious topic!
THE REV. SKIP LINDEMAN
Congregational Church of the
Lighted Window
United Church of Christ
La Canada Flintridge
