6.03.2005
Supreme Court and Satanists (and Vikings, and Witches)
It has been a few days since the recent (unanimous) Supreme Court decision on the court case Cutter v. Wilkinson which upholds the right of prisoners to request (and receive) reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Here are some reactions in the media.
Pat Nolan writing for Christianity Today believes that this ruling is good for all religions, not just the minority faiths represented in the case:
"As with many cases that are heard by the high court, the facts in Cutter did not make an attractive case for supporters of religious liberty. The plaintiffs are Ohio prisoners who hold unconventional religious beliefs. Some of them are followers of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings, and includes Thor as one of its gods. Another plaintiff is an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, which espouses a belief that the races should be separated. Another is a practicing witch, and John Cutter is an avowed Satanist...Even with the protections of RLUIPA, prisoners are still at the mercy of corrections officials to allow them to practice their faith. By the time their claims are litigated, many of them will have been moved to other facilities or even been released, making their claims moot. However, the purpose of passing RLUIPA was not to create litigation, but instead to allow us to enter into a dialogue with prison officials to find ways that they can protect the safety and security of staff, inmates, and volunteers while accommodating the religious programs and practices that are so important to changing the lives of inmates."
Jeffrey Page of the New Jersey Record wrestles with caring about prisoner rights:
"...the things people do to one another to get themselves locked up for 50 years are so unremittingly cruel that despite your best efforts, your response to a prisoner getting his right to worship may not be "Amen" but "Oh, just give it a rest." This doesn't make you cruel - just human...He got religion at East Jersey State Prison in Avenel, not Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything with which most people are familiar. It was Wicca, a form of witchcraft that combines nature worship and white magic. To practice Wicca, Pantusco told prison officials, he needed a bell, a flute, some oil and some books...In an Ohio case this week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law requiring prisons to oblige their prisoners' religious needs. Pantusco is covered by that ruling. Amen. But Pantusco was so terribly disrespected in not getting his Wicca material as soon as he demanded that, his lawyer says, he will sue New Jersey for damages. Oh, just give it a rest."
Rowland Nethaway of the Waco Tribune-Herald thinks the ruling has opened up a big can of worms:
"A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling protects the constitutional rights of devil-worshipping prisoners. If America's wardens and prison guards do not properly respect Satanist literature and devil-worshiping religious services, could they run the risk of having Amnesty International describe all U.S. prisons as a gulag?... On Tuesday, the Supreme Court made the job of handling U.S. prisoners more difficult for prison authorities and jailers by unanimously siding with a group of Ohio inmates and upholding their constitutional rights to the religious literature and worship services of their choice... How all this will shake out in U.S. prisons likely will be limited only by the creativity of America's incarcerated prisoners who will dream up all sorts of faith-based reasons to drive their wardens crazy and gum up the system. Surely, prisoners wouldn't lie about their religious beliefs or use their religion as a means to falsely accuse officials of violating their rights, would they?"
Agape Press gets a quote from Attorney Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy:
"Attorney Brian Fahling of the AFA Center for Law & Policy says he is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold prisoners' religious freedom rights. Still, he feels the Cutter ruling is not without some irony and describes it as possibly a "sign of the times" that the faith-friendly precedent was secured as it was. "This decision will obviously benefit Christians as well," Fahling notes, "but the oddity about this, again, is the fact that we have religious freedom being protected through the agency of a Satanist and a witch." Still, the important thing, he emphasizes, is that the court's decision addresses both religious liberty concerns and prison security concerns."
The Asatru Folk Assembly's director Stephen A. McNallen is obviously pleased:
"The native spiritual path of the European peoples carries incredible rehabilitative, transformative, and healing power for those who approach it with openness and reverence. How can it be in the interest of the state to deny us our spiritual birthright in such a win-win situation?"
It seems that pretty much every person of faith was happy with the decision. But there was one group not happy with the ruling, just ask Ellen Johnson president of American Atheists:
"We are disappointed because the Supreme Court is upholding this unfair legislation that clearly discriminates in favor of religious practice and belief. This isn't about equal rights. It's about creating 'special rights' in the name of religion."
For more information on the case and some of the legal background, I would check out the First Amendment Center, and a special round table discussion hosted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
It has been a few days since the recent (unanimous) Supreme Court decision on the court case Cutter v. Wilkinson which upholds the right of prisoners to request (and receive) reasonable accommodations for religious practice. Here are some reactions in the media.
Pat Nolan writing for Christianity Today believes that this ruling is good for all religions, not just the minority faiths represented in the case:
"As with many cases that are heard by the high court, the facts in Cutter did not make an attractive case for supporters of religious liberty. The plaintiffs are Ohio prisoners who hold unconventional religious beliefs. Some of them are followers of Asatru, a polytheistic religion that originated with the Vikings, and includes Thor as one of its gods. Another plaintiff is an ordained minister of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, which espouses a belief that the races should be separated. Another is a practicing witch, and John Cutter is an avowed Satanist...Even with the protections of RLUIPA, prisoners are still at the mercy of corrections officials to allow them to practice their faith. By the time their claims are litigated, many of them will have been moved to other facilities or even been released, making their claims moot. However, the purpose of passing RLUIPA was not to create litigation, but instead to allow us to enter into a dialogue with prison officials to find ways that they can protect the safety and security of staff, inmates, and volunteers while accommodating the religious programs and practices that are so important to changing the lives of inmates."
Jeffrey Page of the New Jersey Record wrestles with caring about prisoner rights:
"...the things people do to one another to get themselves locked up for 50 years are so unremittingly cruel that despite your best efforts, your response to a prisoner getting his right to worship may not be "Amen" but "Oh, just give it a rest." This doesn't make you cruel - just human...He got religion at East Jersey State Prison in Avenel, not Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything with which most people are familiar. It was Wicca, a form of witchcraft that combines nature worship and white magic. To practice Wicca, Pantusco told prison officials, he needed a bell, a flute, some oil and some books...In an Ohio case this week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law requiring prisons to oblige their prisoners' religious needs. Pantusco is covered by that ruling. Amen. But Pantusco was so terribly disrespected in not getting his Wicca material as soon as he demanded that, his lawyer says, he will sue New Jersey for damages. Oh, just give it a rest."
Rowland Nethaway of the Waco Tribune-Herald thinks the ruling has opened up a big can of worms:
"A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling protects the constitutional rights of devil-worshipping prisoners. If America's wardens and prison guards do not properly respect Satanist literature and devil-worshiping religious services, could they run the risk of having Amnesty International describe all U.S. prisons as a gulag?... On Tuesday, the Supreme Court made the job of handling U.S. prisoners more difficult for prison authorities and jailers by unanimously siding with a group of Ohio inmates and upholding their constitutional rights to the religious literature and worship services of their choice... How all this will shake out in U.S. prisons likely will be limited only by the creativity of America's incarcerated prisoners who will dream up all sorts of faith-based reasons to drive their wardens crazy and gum up the system. Surely, prisoners wouldn't lie about their religious beliefs or use their religion as a means to falsely accuse officials of violating their rights, would they?"
Agape Press gets a quote from Attorney Brian Fahling of the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy:
"Attorney Brian Fahling of the AFA Center for Law & Policy says he is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold prisoners' religious freedom rights. Still, he feels the Cutter ruling is not without some irony and describes it as possibly a "sign of the times" that the faith-friendly precedent was secured as it was. "This decision will obviously benefit Christians as well," Fahling notes, "but the oddity about this, again, is the fact that we have religious freedom being protected through the agency of a Satanist and a witch." Still, the important thing, he emphasizes, is that the court's decision addresses both religious liberty concerns and prison security concerns."
The Asatru Folk Assembly's director Stephen A. McNallen is obviously pleased:
"The native spiritual path of the European peoples carries incredible rehabilitative, transformative, and healing power for those who approach it with openness and reverence. How can it be in the interest of the state to deny us our spiritual birthright in such a win-win situation?"
It seems that pretty much every person of faith was happy with the decision. But there was one group not happy with the ruling, just ask Ellen Johnson president of American Atheists:
"We are disappointed because the Supreme Court is upholding this unfair legislation that clearly discriminates in favor of religious practice and belief. This isn't about equal rights. It's about creating 'special rights' in the name of religion."
For more information on the case and some of the legal background, I would check out the First Amendment Center, and a special round table discussion hosted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Comments:
Interesting and informative smorgasbord of responses. Thanks for pulling them together. I was a little taken aback at Ellen Johnson's attitude. Does this new law somehow prevent atheists from practising atheism?
Post a Comment
Interesting and informative smorgasbord of responses. Thanks for pulling them together. I was a little taken aback at Ellen Johnson's attitude. Does this new law somehow prevent atheists from practising atheism?
Links to this post:
