I'm Staying Out of the Pen

In addition to soap on a rope, non-religious folk going to the pokey had better prepare for their religious fellow inmates getting special treatment. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that states must accommodate inmates' religious worship.

The high court's ruling upholds a federal law that requires state corrections officials to remove any unjustified burdens on the ability of prison inmates to worship.

The decision marks an important victory not only for religious inmates but for all minority religious groups in the United States that rely on such accommodations to freely practice their faith without government interference. A ruling that invalidated the federal law would have placed in question a wide range of religious accommodations and exemptions.

On the one hand, I'm happy that this means that this removes a barrier of discrimination against pagans and Wiccans. The folks at Americans United for Separation of Church and State applauded the decision on this basis. But, on the other, I'm dismayed. If Joey Religion needs special food or pictures or whatever, he'd get it. But if Andy the Atheist wants a small library where he can read books by freethinkers and atheists, the state is under no obligation to provide such things for him. All religions should be held to be equal under the law but my gripe is that religious people should not be given preferential treatment because they have these weird beliefs. American Atheists released a press statement critical of the decision.

Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, warned that the law will have "unforeseen consequences" going far beyond the confines of prisons. "The court is saying that a wide range of practices are considered more sacrosanct if done under the guise of religion."

"Religious inmates may now be able to eat special foods or engage in other activities, but nonreligious people are not be entitled to these kinds of benefits, simply because they are not religious."

"This creates a two-tier system of rights, and a dual standard for government," Silverman added.

Perhaps the scariest part of the decision comes from Clarence Thomas' opinion and was noted in the Christian Science Monitor article:

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said he agreed with the ruling. But he added that in his view a "proper historical understanding of the [Establishment] Clause as a federalism provision leads to the same conclusion."

He says the First Amendment was aimed at preventing federal government interference in state establishments of religion - not to erect a wall separating church and state. "The view that the Establishment Clause precludes Congress from legislating respecting religion lacks historical provenance," he writes.

"Even when enacting laws that bind the states pursuant to valid exercises of its enumerated powers, Congress need not observe strict separation between church and state, or steer clear of the subject of religion," he says. "It need only refrain from making laws 'respecting an establishment of religion'; it must not interfere with a state establishment of religion."

Is it me or is Thomas saying that the federal government cannot prohibit states from granting a religion offical status? That's how I interpret his statements. So, if Kansas wanted to make some flavor of Christianity the official state religion, the feds would have no jurisdiction in his view. I must wonder how he'd feel if California wanted to make Scientology the official state religion.