The question regarding the extent to which prisoners should
be protected by the First Amendment Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses has
been in question for years now. In Kansas, inmate Shari Webber-Dunn, serving
time for a murder charge, claimed her First Amendment rights were violated by ‘Christian
Propaganda’ imposed by the prison. In the lawsuit, Topeka Correctional Facility
in Kansas had allegedly embraced Christianity by “displaying an eight-foot-tall
wooden cross in its basement, publicly posting prison-related prayers,
soliciting book donations for a spiritual library and offering prayer request
submission on a Christian bulletin board. Christian movies are also broadcasted
on facility televisions and spiritual quotes are posted at the laundry room
workplace.”
Webber-Dunn believed that the correctional
center was “imposing strong Christian values on inmates” and creating “a
coercive atmosphere where inmates are pressured to spend their time in a highly
religious atmosphere and to participate in religious activities and prayers.”
The inmates are prohibited from removing anything from the public bulletin
boards. Webber-Dunn sees this as a violation of the Establishment Clause with, “no
valid reason why Christian materials should be displayed [there] in a
state-owned and operated correctional facility.” Inmate Webber-Dunn is
requesting the religious items be removed and the eight-foot cross covered when
it is not being used to religious services. Despite these concerns being
brought up to the facility administrators and team managers, “no action has
been taken to correct the problems.”
In fighting this lawsuit,
Webber-Dunn is partnering with the American Humanist Association (AHA), a
nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing the separation of church and
state. The group reflects constitutional rights that align with humanists and
atheists, and seeing that Webber-Dunn is registered with the prison as a
practicing Thelemite, a system that encourages people to follow their true will
and not interfere with the true will of another person, the pairing seemed natural.
David Niose, the AHA legal director gave in a statement that, “prisoners are
not exempt from the Constitution. Prisoners do not lose the shield from state-sponsored
religion provided by the Establishment Clause.”
I do not see there being any
question about the constitutionality of these religious oriented practices; the
Topeka Correctional Facility is clearly in violation of Shari Webber-Dunn’s
First Amendment Establishment Rights and the rights of the government. Removing
the propaganda and covering the cross statue, as Webber-Dunn requested, would create
no substantial burden on the prison. However, pressuring inmates to spend time
around these religious symbols can be seen as a coercive attempt by the
government to impose values of this particular religion. These practices and
displays clearly hold no secular value, and to make it worse, they cannot be
deemed neutral either as they focus on promoting Christianity. This not only
poses excessive entanglement by the government as this a state-owned and
operated facility, it also does not allow for fair separation between church
and state, as requested by our Founders in the Constitution.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Prisons are afforded extra protections in my opinion if they deem fit, and promoting Christian values is common within prisons to help prisoners rehabilitate for there return to society. The prison isn't forcing Webster-Dunn to adopt Christianity and are not looking for funding to promote these things from the government so thus they shouldn't be required to take this down even if one persons Establishment Clauses rights might be violated. Without coercion from the prison they should be within there rights to post these messages considering there is compelling interest to rehabilitate its prisoners.
I agree with you that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause. In response to Harrison's comment that "there is a compelling interest to rehabilitate its prisoners," I believe this interest is one that the prison promotes through many other measures. For example, many prisons offer psychiatrists to their prisoners or allow them to take classes or participate in recreational activities. Because of this, I am unconvinced that the compelling state interest of rehabilitation can justify this establishment of religion, especially given the fact that not all of the prisoners are Christian.
I agree with the assessment that this is a violation of the establishment clause, there is no reason for a state owned correction facility to be pressuring prisoners to conform to a religion. I also disagree with Harrison's point that Christian beliefs are part of the rehabilitation of process, there are many religions that have moral codes that any person who has broken the law could benefit from. But there is a clear preference for one religion which is violation of the establishment clause.
This is a clear violation of the establishment clause. As others have noted, this is a state run facility and any religion the prison is promoting is therefore an endorsement of the state. This is a clear violation of the rights of the prisoners as well as the staff members who may not agree with the Christian propaganda. I agree with Jill that there is a compelling interest to rehabilitate its prisoners, but through the use of psychiatrists and education, not through indoctrination. There is no compelling state interest in furthering the Christian religion within this prison.
I think it's very important to help prisoners rehabilitate into society and religion plays an important role in that process for many inmates. However, I think it's dangerous for a state owned corrections facility to promote only one religion. These people are stuck here, or in other words, they are a captive audience who has no choice but to subject themselves to Christian religious teaching. This facility may not be directly forcing the inmates to convert to Christianity, but they are imposing strong Christian values on them. As they sit in their jail cells, maybe they are in a state where they are more impressionable than usual and could be easily pressured to participate in these religious practices- by the state! Therefore, I agree that promoting one religion to this extent in a state owned correctional facility is a violation of the establishment clause.
I agree with Noa that the prison’s practices are violating the establishment of religion clause. There are means in which the prison can not put Christian propaganda publically and still allow for Christian prisoners to exercise their religion freely. Also, there does not sound like any other religion or religious quotes are on display throughout the prison, which is clearly preferencing Christianity over other religions. There should not be any religion quotes or symbols outside of prison places of worship because it is simply not possible to control the inclusion of all religions.
Post a Comment