Freedom of Religion: For Christians Only

[Quintessence]

Imagine the following scenario.

You are an adherent of a non-Christian religion in the United States of America. You've been incarcerated for a crime and are on death row. The only religious leaders employed by your state's Department of Corrections are Christian chaplains. There is a religious leader from your own tradition that you knew before your incarceration that you would like present at your moment of death. You make this request. Reasonable, right? The United States of America respects the free exercise of religion. Any religion. That includes you, a religious minority, who is not Christian.

Your request is denied. By the Supreme Court, no less.

We don't have to imagine this scenario, unfortunately. It's happened: Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam. In the United States of America, it is apparently okay for a state constitution to allow only Christian ministers to be present and make any other religion second class.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “clearest command” of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The strict rule against denominational preference lies at the heart of American religious liberty, and it dates back to the founding of our nation. The constitutional framers recognized that “religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate.” When the government officially favors one faith over others, it intrudes on matters of conscience and religious autonomy, fosters religious division and animosity, and tramples our national commitment to equality among faiths.

Yet that’s precisely what happened in Alabama last week. Although Alabama routinely permits a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber to minister to the needs of Christian prisoners, state officials rejected Ray’s request for the same treatment. With the green light from the Supreme Court, Alabama executed Ray without his imam to attend him in his final moments. As the court of appeals recognized, the religious favoritism could not have been clearer: “If Ray were a Christian, he would have a profound benefit; because he is a Muslim, he is denied that benefit.”
The Supreme Court Is Playing Favorites With Religion
​

Not sure what to make of this. It goes without saying that majorities in this country - Christians in this case - take their privileges for granted. The intent of our Constitution keeps those privileges from being denied to minority groups. What happens when that fails? It's disheartening, and disturbingly unsurprising. Anyone know anything more about this story? I can't say I have the legal expertise to wade through that end of the language. Surely, there has to be some reasonable justification for this. I can't find myself believing such blatant discrimination was allowed to occur here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Imagine the following scenario.

You are an adherent of a non-Christian religion in the United States of America. You've been incarcerated for a crime and are on death row. The only religious leaders employed by your state's Department of Corrections are Christian chaplains. There is a religious leader from your own tradition that you knew before your incarceration that you would like present at your moment of death. You make this request. Reasonable, right? The United States of America respects the free exercise of religion. Any religion. That includes you, a religious minority, who is not Christian.

Your request is denied. By the Supreme Court, no less.

We don't have to imagine this scenario, unfortunately. It's happened: Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam. In the United States of America, it is apparently okay for a state constitution to allow only Christian ministers to be present and make any other religion second class.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “clearest command” of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The strict rule against denominational preference lies at the heart of American religious liberty, and it dates back to the founding of our nation. The constitutional framers recognized that “religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate.” When the government officially favors one faith over others, it intrudes on matters of conscience and religious autonomy, fosters religious division and animosity, and tramples our national commitment to equality among faiths.

Yet that’s precisely what happened in Alabama last week. Although Alabama routinely permits a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber to minister to the needs of Christian prisoners, state officials rejected Ray’s request for the same treatment. With the green light from the Supreme Court, Alabama executed Ray without his imam to attend him in his final moments. As the court of appeals recognized, the religious favoritism could not have been clearer: “If Ray were a Christian, he would have a profound benefit; because he is a Muslim, he is denied that benefit.”
The Supreme Court Is Playing Favorites With Religion
​

Not sure what to make of this. It goes without saying that majorities in this country - Christians in this case - take their privileges for granted. The intent of our Constitution keeps those privileges from being denied to minority groups. What happens when that fails? It's disheartening, and disturbingly unsurprising. Anyone know anything more about this story? I can't say I have the legal expertise to wade through that end of the language. Surely, there has to be some reasonable justification for this. I can't find myself believing such blatant discrimination was allowed to occur here.

There are many examples of Christianity being the religion of government.
"God" is the proper name of the Christian god, & he is invoked in court
swearing, on our money (not the original money) & the (not the original)
Pledge Of Allegiance. Getting a priest instead of an Imam seems no worse.

I'm old enuf to remember teacher led prayer (Christian, of course) in public
school. At least that has subsided.

 

[Woberts]

Surely, there has to be some reasonable justification for this.

They said that it was because the only people allowed in the execution room were employees.
That sounds pretty reasonable, right?
Well, the only religious figure they had employed was a Christian pastor.
That, my dear friend, is the crux of the problem.

 

[David1967]

They said that it was because the only people allowed in the execution room were employees.
That sounds pretty reasonable, right?
Well, the only religious figure they had employed was a Christian pastor.
That, my dear friend, is the crux of the problem.

Did they eventually allow the mans Imam to be there?

 

[Woberts]

Did they eventually allow the mans Imam to be there?

Nope. His Imam wasn't allowed to be there. I think he was allowed to watch from the place where the officials would have killed the man, though. The viewing box, or whatever it's called.

 

[youknowme]

We certainly would not want to deny someone their rights when murdering them.

 

[Nakosis]

Imagine the following scenario.

You are an adherent of a non-Christian religion in the United States of America. You've been incarcerated for a crime and are on death row. The only religious leaders employed by your state's Department of Corrections are Christian chaplains. There is a religious leader from your own tradition that you knew before your incarceration that you would like present at your moment of death. You make this request. Reasonable, right? The United States of America respects the free exercise of religion. Any religion. That includes you, a religious minority, who is not Christian.

Your request is denied. By the Supreme Court, no less.

We don't have to imagine this scenario, unfortunately. It's happened: Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam. In the United States of America, it is apparently okay for a state constitution to allow only Christian ministers to be present and make any other religion second class.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “clearest command” of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The strict rule against denominational preference lies at the heart of American religious liberty, and it dates back to the founding of our nation. The constitutional framers recognized that “religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate.” When the government officially favors one faith over others, it intrudes on matters of conscience and religious autonomy, fosters religious division and animosity, and tramples our national commitment to equality among faiths.

Yet that’s precisely what happened in Alabama last week. Although Alabama routinely permits a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber to minister to the needs of Christian prisoners, state officials rejected Ray’s request for the same treatment. With the green light from the Supreme Court, Alabama executed Ray without his imam to attend him in his final moments. As the court of appeals recognized, the religious favoritism could not have been clearer: “If Ray were a Christian, he would have a profound benefit; because he is a Muslim, he is denied that benefit.”
The Supreme Court Is Playing Favorites With Religion
​

Not sure what to make of this. It goes without saying that majorities in this country - Christians in this case - take their privileges for granted. The intent of our Constitution keeps those privileges from being denied to minority groups. What happens when that fails? It's disheartening, and disturbingly unsurprising. Anyone know anything more about this story? I can't say I have the legal expertise to wade through that end of the language. Surely, there has to be some reasonable justification for this. I can't find myself believing such blatant discrimination was allowed to occur here.

I imagine a person who wants to enjoy religious freedom shouldn't do something to get themselves put on death row. Whatever "idealistically" a person might feel they have a right to, there's no guarantee they'll get that freedom when incarcerated. your freedoms left to you are basically at the whims of your jailers.

Why the Iman needed to be in the chamber with him, I don't know.

 

[Woberts]

We certainly would not want to deny someone their rights when murdering them.

Eh, they're two different rights. While I oppose the death penalty, I'm doubly opposed to religious discrimination. The latter is a much more important right, however.

 

[Vee]

How can a country call itself Christian and still practice the death penalty? If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

 

[Nakosis]

How can a country call itself Christian and still practice the death penalty? If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

While I'm not a Christian, I don't agree with a death penalty either. At best I think it fulfills a sense of revenge that some like to call justice.

Still it's the law of the land whether I like it or not.

 

[Windwalker]

If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

Followed immediately by a string of commandments to put people to death for violating the law.

 

[Kenny]

Imagine the following scenario.

You are an adherent of a non-Christian religion in the United States of America. You've been incarcerated for a crime and are on death row. The only religious leaders employed by your state's Department of Corrections are Christian chaplains. There is a religious leader from your own tradition that you knew before your incarceration that you would like present at your moment of death. You make this request. Reasonable, right? The United States of America respects the free exercise of religion. Any religion. That includes you, a religious minority, who is not Christian.

Your request is denied. By the Supreme Court, no less.

We don't have to imagine this scenario, unfortunately. It's happened: Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam. In the United States of America, it is apparently okay for a state constitution to allow only Christian ministers to be present and make any other religion second class.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “clearest command” of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause “is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” The strict rule against denominational preference lies at the heart of American religious liberty, and it dates back to the founding of our nation. The constitutional framers recognized that “religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate.” When the government officially favors one faith over others, it intrudes on matters of conscience and religious autonomy, fosters religious division and animosity, and tramples our national commitment to equality among faiths.

Yet that’s precisely what happened in Alabama last week. Although Alabama routinely permits a Christian chaplain to be present in the execution chamber to minister to the needs of Christian prisoners, state officials rejected Ray’s request for the same treatment. With the green light from the Supreme Court, Alabama executed Ray without his imam to attend him in his final moments. As the court of appeals recognized, the religious favoritism could not have been clearer: “If Ray were a Christian, he would have a profound benefit; because he is a Muslim, he is denied that benefit.”
The Supreme Court Is Playing Favorites With Religion
​

Not sure what to make of this. It goes without saying that majorities in this country - Christians in this case - take their privileges for granted. The intent of our Constitution keeps those privileges from being denied to minority groups. What happens when that fails? It's disheartening, and disturbingly unsurprising. Anyone know anything more about this story? I can't say I have the legal expertise to wade through that end of the language. Surely, there has to be some reasonable justification for this. I can't find myself believing such blatant discrimination was allowed to occur here.

I would agree that either chaplains/spiritual leaders are present or none at all...

the finer points:

In a written order on Friday, U.S. District Judge Keith Watkins agreed that allowing a "free world" spiritual adviser into the death chamber would overburden ADOC's execution process. "Though a state chaplain is usually in the death chamber, he is also a trained member of the execution team. He has witnessed dozens of executions and trained on how to respond if something goes wrong," Watkins wrote. "If the chaplain disobeys orders, he will face disciplinary action. In contrast, Ray’s private spiritual adviser is untrained, inexperienced, and outside the State’s control."

Spencer Hahn, Ray's co-counsel, argued Thursday training nonemployee spiritual advisers to be present in the execution chamber should not be a barrier to providing inmates their religious rights. "We are disappointed that the District Court's order did not uphold the substantial claim that Mr. Ray's free exercise of religion is being interfered with, or the claim that the State is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution," said John Palombi, an attorney for Ray. "We will be appealing this ruling and asking the Court of Appeals to stay Mr. Ray's execution to allow these important issues to be resolved in a more deliberate manner."

ADOC policies allow a death row inmate's chosen spiritual adviser visitation up to 5:15 p.m. on the day of an execution, when they are then allowed to view the execution from a witness room adjacent to the execution chamber. "Why does Mr. Ray not get the same benefit that a Christian would?" Hahn asked the court.

Ray was sentenced to death for the 1995 rape and fatal stabbing of 15-year-old Tiffany Harville of Selma. Months before his death penalty trial, he was sentenced to life for a 1994 slaying of two teen brothers, The Associated Press reports.

Sentencing Law and Policy: Litigation update on Alabama death row prisoner denied Muslim spiritual adviser for upcoming execution

 

[Kenny]

How can a country call itself Christian and still practice the death penalty? If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

Actually, if I am not mistaken, in the Hebrew it is "Thou shalt not commit murder" with "life for a life" being the consequences for murdering someone.

 

[youknowme]

How can a country call itself Christian and still practice the death penalty? If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

They pretend God said something else, because you know, what would worship of a loving forgiving god be without blood, murder and war. Nothing says "I forgive you" like a knife in the eye.

 

[sun rise]

With a somewhat fundamentalist Supreme Court, favoring Christianity in spite of the Constitution is unfortunately what we're seeing. I expect to see a trend developing with more such anti-Constitution legislating from the "bench".

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP (a good one BTW):

It seems that there is an ongoing fight between secularists - who truly defend freedom of religion - from those Christians who pursue the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation". And such Christians are a powerful and persistent bunch, not to be taken lightly. And they muck a lot of stuff up. For example, about 1/3 of the high school biology teachers in the U.S. have given up teaching evolution. Oh they believe in evolution, but they've found it's just not worth the hassle to teach it. So here we have religious folks clearly un-separating church and state and negatively impacting our education system.

(Note to Islam apologists - see there? I just attacked Christianity. I'm an equal opportunity critic of religion )

 

[Nakosis]

Back to the OP (a good one BTW):

It seems that there is an ongoing fight between secularists - who truly defend freedom of religion - from those Christians who pursue the idea that the U.S. is a "Christian nation". And such Christians are a powerful and persistent bunch, not to be taken lightly. And they muck a lot of stuff up. For example, about 1/3 of the high school biology teachers in the U.S. have given up teaching evolution. Oh they believe in evolution, but they've found it's just not worth the hassle to teach it. So here we have religious folks clearly un-separating church and state and negatively impacting our education system.

(Note to Islam apologists - see there? I just attacked Christianity. I'm an equal opportunity critic of religion )

Christian privilege exists in America.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

How can a country call itself Christian and still practice the death penalty? If I remember well, one of the christian 10 commandments was precisely “Thou shalt not kill.”

Don't forget, Israel did...on Jehovah's Laws

 

[Quintessence]

There's an interesting turn of events on this general issue with a new, very similar case and ruling:

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the execution of a Buddhist inmate in Texas whose request that his spiritual adviser be present in the execution chamber had been denied.

....

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote that the state’s policy of allowing only Christian and Muslim chaplains to attend executions amounted to unconstitutional religious discrimination. “The government may not discriminate against religion generally or against particular religious denominations,” he wrote.

“In this case,” he wrote, “the relevant Texas policy allows a Christian or Muslim inmate to have a state-employed Christian or Muslim religious adviser present either in the execution room or in the adjacent viewing room. But inmates of other religious denominations — for example, Buddhist inmates such as Murphy — who want their religious adviser to be present can have the religious adviser present only in the viewing room and not in the execution room itself for their executions.”
From: Supreme Court Stays Execution of Buddhist Inmate​

I gotta say, I'm not clear on why the earlier case was given a different treatment than this one. Not sure whether or not to be hopeful or suspicious.