From here:
http://www.house.gov/blackburn/press/june_30_05.shtml
“Each detainee is issued the following basic items: a Koran in their language, a sleeping mat, a washcloth, a sheet, and a surgical mask. “Comfort items” (given if a detainee complies with camp rules) include a prayer rug, perfume oil, prayer beads, and a prayer cap. Approximately 64% of detainees receive all comfort items.”
Since this is a taxpayer-funded endeavor, does this not violate the separation clause? Why no outrage at providing the religious needs of these people at taxpayer expense?
I have a Fundy friend who jokingly was making the same point- of course, it’s totally offbase as prisons regularly make spiritual/religious provisions for their inmates, with the exception of contraband materials (ritual drugs or blades, for
instance).
Aren’t there also chaplains in prisons, presumably paid for by taxpayers?
There’s an exception in Establishment clause law that applies when the government places a person in a situation where he doesn’t have access to clergy or other religious needs. There, it would be considered to be more serious Constitutional violation not to accomodate religious needs.
Same analysis applies to US military personnel. That’s why the military employs chaplains.
(This analysis is not meant to be complete, as I’m still at the office and want to get out of here soon. In particular, I’m ignoring the question of whether full Constitutional protections apply to Guantanamo prisoners.)
- Is the government forcing those detainees to practice a particular religion?
- Is the government upholding the constitutional guarantee that those individuals can practice their religion, regardless of their current circumstance?
Try those two questions on your Fundamentalist friend, FriarTed.
Random: The military chaplains are also employed to support the morale of the entire unit, not merely serve the pastoral needs of members of their own faith.
Better yet, FriarTed, ask your friend what he’d think of the US holding Christian terrorists (let’s say we’re holding IRA holdouts for the UK) at Guantanamo and refusing them access to a Bible.
True, but that’s irrelevant to the analysis. If morale support is the goal, you can hire non-religious morale officers instead of chaplains. Absent the rationale I stated, it would be an establishment/separation clause violation for military to hire and pay chaplains, purchase and distribute religious paraphanalia, construct chapel facilities and otherwise promote religion through its chaplain program. Having the chaplains do other things doesn’t cure that problem.
Look, the first amendment means that everyone is entitled to the free exercise of their religion. When someone is in prison their freedom is curtailed, they can’t walk down to their local mosque or synagogue. And so the government that detained these people now has to reasonably accomodate their religious needs. Providing religious paraphenelia to the detainees is a reasonable accomodation, denying them religious paraphenalia would be an unreasonable violation of the first amendment.
Well it’s one thing if the prisoners request a Koran, but isn’t giving one to all prisoners as standard issue promoting a religion? Sort of like analogous to the idea that it’s ok for students to initiate prayer on their own, but not ok for a school to initiate it. In this case by passing out unrequested Korans to all prisoners that sounds to me like it’s imposing a religious view.
Didn’t we just do this a month or so ago in this fourm?
First of all, can the OP cite this alleged “separation clause”? Perhaps he means the “establishment clause”, because there isn’t a “separation clause”. It’s a common mistake, made mainly be people who haven’t actually read the constitution.
So, ask yourself, by supplying inmates in prison a religious book of their choice, is Congress esablishing a religion?
If all the detainees are Muslims, particularly of the extreme variety? I don’t know about that.
On further thought, the OP has it exactly backwards. The establishment clause (my emphasis):
REQUIRES that detained individuals be given access to religious materials, lest they be prevented from the free exercise of their religion.
All the prisoners there just so happen to be Muslims; therefore, there religious book is, as should be no surprise, the Quran.
Military chaplains do have a nonreligious role and that’s why they must have certain qualifications above and beyond your regular civilian clergy. Additionally, however, they are available for religious functions to serve the religious requirements of their essentially captive (figuratively, if you will) populations, functions which nonreligious counsellors cannot meet.
For both the prisoners and the military, as there is no requirement to nor prohibition against, nor governmental sponsorship of the religions concerned, there is no constitutional conflict.
BTW, when I was in Basic Training, I was permitted my religious books (at the time, the KJV) which I paid for. Do prisoners have to pay for those items, are the costs for those items deducted from whatever payments they receive for camp work? If so, then this whole thing is, as I already consider it to be, a tempest in a teapot.
I dont’ think that argument works, because it wouldn’t matter in the school if all the students were fundamentalist Christians. The school still couldn’t *initiate * prayer.
But they’re not just being granted access. That’s a mischaracterization. They’re being issued religious texts and items without having asked for them.
That would “their religious book.” I suppose I could lamely claim that I meant “that there” as opposed to “this here” but that would be, as I said, lame.
The call to prayer is a traditional part of Islam, I think that probably factors in.
Not specifically you, but I’d like to point out that this is probably a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation for the government. I imagine someone would complain if they weren’t given Korans as well.
I imagine the detainees are provided it but are not required to accept it.
Nor, as I understand things, can they forbid a student from praying, or from possessing religious writings and paraphenelia necessary to the practice of their faith, which would be a violation of their constitutional rights. Prisons, by their nature, would prevent inmates from possessing the writings etc. necessary for the exercise of their religion, unless they take proactive measures to assist them.
Yeah, but we’re talking about a prison that contains only Muslim fundamentalists. How many of them do you think aren’t going to ask for a Koran? Making them standard issue just cuts down on the red tape of having each individual prisoner make a request for one, and for the prison to process that request. It’s just more practical to do it this way.
As well they should be. Unless you can verify that they are forbidden from accepting it, or that they are not, for example, given a Bible if that is requested, then it is of no consequence.
Lots of things are practical that aren’t constitutional. It would be practical to just issue bibles to everyone in prison too, since the vast majority of prisoners are Christian.
Also are we sure that all detainees are Muslim Fundamentalists? I’m not so sure about that. It assumes a lot - a) that all detainees actually were fighting against the U.S. and b) people fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq and whereever else MUST be Muslim fundamentalists.
Again that doesn’t change the argument that it’s government-initiated.
My guess is that the real issue is who is seriously going to contest the constitutionality of the practice? The ACLU? Yeah, right and alienate the people they’re trying to help - plus they have far bigger fish to fry at Guantanomo. The prisoners themselves? Doubtful.
Practically, ethically, and on the basis of pure common-sense, I don’t have problem with the practice at all. I’d never raise the issue myself. The only problem I do see is that it gives the Christian Right some legitimate ammunition to complain that they’re being discriminated against. Why is it legal for the government to distribute Korans at Guantanomo and not Bibles at Attica? Any argument you make for the Koran cuts both ways.