Prisons are supposed to be some of the hardest places to get in and out of, designed to protect the common populous from those who have broken the law. However, there are specific processes that allow people who have not broken the law to enter the prison so that they can visit loved ones that are there. One woman experienced the process when she went to go visit her brother and was met with even more problems than just the routine process. Audra Ragland was told to remove her head covering before being allowed entry into the visiting area of the United States Penitentiary in Georgia. When she refused on the grounds of her religion, she was told that because she was Christian and not Muslim or Jewish, which were approved to enter with head coverings she would not be permitted to see her brother until she removed her covering. Ragland was shocked because many Christian women in different sects around the world, do cover their heads, so she believed that it should not be an issue. She even offered to prove to the officer that her faith was valid by showing him the passage of the Bible that she believed was proof that she should cover her head to show her respect and deference to her God. Once again the prison officials did not accept this response and she was told she would have to remove her head covering.
In order to see her brother and as not to burden those that she was attempting to visit him with, she removed her headscarf and fought with herself the entire time about whether or not she was disobeying her God. After walking through the visiting area filled with people she did not know, she said: “I felt humiliated and ashamed as I worried that I was dishonoring God.” After deciding that reporting this incident would not result in retaliation against her brother, she went to the ACLU of Georgia to help protect her religious rights. As of now, the ACLU is sending a letter to the prison saying that the government officials should not be able to decide what is part of a religion and what is not. Also in this letter, the ACLU said that if the prison did not comply then they would pursue legal action.
I think that this is a direct violation of Ragland’s right to freely exercise her religion. To require her to remove her head covering puts a substantial burden on her and the State has no secular interest in requiring her to remove her head covering for the entirety of her visit. There are ways to make the prison secure without requiring her to remove her head covering for the entirety of the trip, ways that were already in place for people of different religions that were known in America to commonly wear head coverings.
In the First Amendment, her right to exercise her religion is laid out very clearly yet these civil magistrates, as one might call them, were deciding that her religion did not “pass the test” for what they thought it should look like or what a practitioner of this faith should do. This concern is not new and was discussed by James Madison in his article, Memorial, and Remonstrance. He too said that civil magistrate should not be considered a competent judge of religious truth even though that is what this government employee did.
This case also is a question of the establishment of a religion because since there were exceptions set aside for only two religions while many others were head coverings this United States government facility is placing these two religions as higher than the others that have members who feel the need to cover their heads in public spheres. This letter that was sent to the prison addressed the issue of Free Exercise more explicitly but the Establishment clause is still a factor in this issue. Audra Ragland was forced to choose between her family and her religion and I think that that qualifies as a substantial burden on her religion and Ragland had proof of this act being a defined act within her religion. If the prison amended their policies to cover people from any religion, not just two, to wear their head coverings then the law would not lead to a possible establishment of certain religions and would allow people with a religious affiliation to exercise their religious rights freely.
https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/sites/dailyreportonline/2017/11/16/aclu-alleges-discrimination-over-prison-visitors-christian-head-covering/?slreturn=20180218215908
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I too believe that the actions of the prison officials were restrictive to her first amendment right to free exercise. It was her belief that covering her hair was an important and sacred part of her worship. To deny her that right violated her rights and placed a substantial religious burden on her, a burden that should only seldom be given, and always for extraordinary circumstances. Although the rule could be for the safety of the prison, giving some kind of interest, I do not believe it to be compelling enough to violate her rights. Seeing as the prison allows for Muslim and Jewish women to wear head coverings, religious exceptions have been made for other religions. Additionally this means that an official, or magistrate, although not part of the government, was making judgements on matters of religion. Madison cautioned against such behavior in his "Remonstrance."
I agree with you and Sean that this is a clear violation of her First Amendment Rights. The prison's allowance of Muslim and Jewish visitors to wear head coverings clearly shows that their is no issue with safety or security for the prison, otherwise no one would be allowed to wear head coverings. This is where I believe this case differs from a case like Goldman v. Weinberger, as the military was at least able to create a rationale of security and uniformity for disallowing a man to wear a yarmulke. I cannot see any clear reason (and the prison has made no effort to provide one) that head coverings would be allowed for one religion and not others. Legitimacy of the religious reasoning, as Sean mentioned, is not up for the magistrates to decide, especially in a matter where other religions are given preferential treatment.
The lack of neutrality of the rule is the main problem in this case. I agree that it is a violation of her First Amendment Rights because the prison allows some to cover their head while not allowing others based on their religion. Although it is the prisons job to make sure everyone is safe and secure, the rules must remain neutral, treating all religions the same. The other issue is allowing the prison to determine which religious practices are "central", or truly necessary to practicing a religion.
I definitely agree that this is a clear violation of her First Amendment rights and that the rule forbidding her from entering with her hair covered is not neutral in any way. Because the prison allows people from other religions to enter the prison with their hair covered, the prison cannot make the argument that they have a secular interest in not allowing people to enter with their hair covered. Instead, her particular religion is being discriminated against in this rule. This is not an issue of security within the prison because exceptions are made for other religions. To me it is undeniable that her First Amendment right to free exercise was violated when the prison made her take of her head covering in order to see her brother. She was significantly burdened, and there was no burden on the prison if they allowed her to keep the covering on.
I agree that Ragland's First Amendment right was violated when the prison forced her to remove her head covering without a good reason. Making her remove her head covering while allowing individuals from other religions to keep theirs on is clearly not neutral. The fact that they allow the people from religions that typically wear head coverings to keep them on while not allowing a Christian woman to wear a head covering is just like civil magistrates saying her religious practice is not valid. No civil magistrate, or prison guard, is a competent judge of what religion is and what religion is not. Throughout many of the cases we have read, the judges have acknowledged that there is no way to define religion because it may be different for everyone. It was a burden for Ragland to remove her head covering and she noted that walking through the prison without it made her very uncomfortable. She definitely should have been allowed to wear it due to her right of free exercise.
Post a Comment