US Courts generally hold that the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion trumps most laws. Here's a hard case--does the right to religious freedom give convicted Taliban supporters the right to assemble in prison for pro-jihadi sermons. In Arabic, no less, so the guards can't understand?
Article from USA Today
Daniel said...
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article from USA Today, i sympathize with the Federal Government. To me a prison is a prison, and revoking certain rights from people who enter is something that is common sense. From my interpretation of the reading, this has more to do with the fact that the people are Taliban sympathizers than being Muslim. Many people may disagree with my claim that the federal government is within its full rights to keep the sympathizers from congregating for radical worships. I stand by this point because these people have done something wrong, not because they are Muslims. There is a valid argument that the 1st Amendment (right to free exercise of religion) should be upheld to citizens of the United States, but that is just the point. These convicted supporters have not lost their freedom of religion, they have only been detained. From what I have read, the prisoners have every right to pray. The only thing taken away from them is their right to congregate in a prison and go on pro-Jihadi rants in Arabic. To me, this could raise a safety issue, and the prisons have every right within its system to prevent radical groups from congregating and building a threatening community.
Stephanie said...
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment gives people the right to religious freedom, but I do not think all the rights afforded to us in the Constitution should be upheld for prisoners. These people are in Federal prison for a reason, and they are very dangerous people that have no respect for our country, so why should we give them the same rights? If the government feels that it is a threat to speak Arabic, then I'd rather have the prisoner’s rights taken away as opposed to my safety. They can still pray, they just cannot congregate and speak Arabic so the guards cannot understand them. I think the fact that these are convicted Taliban supporters makes people less willing to be sympathetic towards their rights.
I have to agree entirely with the side of the government. When people are put in prison, most of their rights and freedoms are taken away, just like the article said. These people made the conscious choice to commit a crime, some of them violent crimes at that, and then they expect to be catered to hand and foot once they go to prison. They should have thought about not being able to do what they wanted in prison before they committed the crime in the first place. This goes for Muslims, Jews, Christians, and every other religious group out there. I dont believe they have the right to do whatever they want, even if it is for their religion, because they have done something wrong and are now incarcerated for it. The prison system doesn't need to be so lenient in letting inmates have their way with everything, because then what punishment would prison really be? If people are put in prison and allowed to do whatever they want, while being fed and clothed and housed all at the same time, then prison won't seem like such a deterrent for crime. I agree with the prison system in that letting Taliban supporters, or anyone for that matter, pray in a language that isnt understood by the guards, is dangerous. The only way to make that work would be to have an untainted translator present. Either way, I dont agree that it should be allowed simply because its prison, and inmates just dont have the freedoms and rights that people who do obey the law have.
ReplyDeleteRights can be taken away in many circumstances, prison is definitely one of those circumstances which should be justified. By breaking laws, you revoke your own rights. I understand that some rights are inalienable and should never be taken away, but under what could pose a dangerous situation, adjustments may often need to be made. Allowing a large number of people to gather in prayer is in itself a danger, but to allow them to do so in a language which guards would not be able to understand, would pose an unnecessary risk to prison workers. In these circumstances, rights have been taken away because of justified reasons and these rights should not be returned because it only endangers others around them.
ReplyDeleteI certainly side with the Federal Government in this instance, as I believe the safety of everyone involved is at stake. Religious freedom is something that our country is founded upon, but many rights are void when a person is incarcerated. The right to liberty is certainly given up as a consequence of a person's actions. Lindh states that, "It's different when you're being prevented from praying by circumstances, as opposed to being prevented by human beings," but I would argue the fact that Lindh is, in fact, prevented from group prayer by his circumstances. I would also suggest that his circumstances today are a direct effect of his actions in aiding the Taliban. I do not think the government has any right to prevent him from praying, but group prayer is another thing entirely. The simple fact that half of the prisoners in Terre Haute are Muslim and that they can communicate in Arabic, a language that the prison guards can't understand, is dangerous in itself.
ReplyDeleteI'll play the devil's advocate by siding with Lindh (Not necessarily agreeing with him, but merely proposing an argument for him.) The Terre Haute prison is holding 43 inmates in which over half are Muslim. They allow the inmates to come together while watching television, playing cards, basketball, anything during their recreational time without really worrying about security. Why would they not believe that during this time they would not attempt to formulate some devious plot against the prison? I mean it seems slightly counter-productive to limit them from allowing them to have prayer with one another, but then say you can go out and congregate with one another. I feel like that will be one of the arguments that Lindh's attorney plans to use. I understand the whole ordeal with not allowing them to give a sermon in arabic, due to possible security risks, but to me it seems like this is just a bit absurd and infringes on their rights, I mean just get a translator to tell the guards what's going on. I think it's possible that the RLUIPA (Religious Land Use of Institutionalized Persons Act) will be brought forth from Lindh and his attorney to determine if it's truly a compelling reason for the prison to act upon this matter seeing as how I see there are possible measures that can be taken for the prison to enforce it's security while allowing the inmates to practice their religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Federal Government is taking the right measures to ensure that the Taliban will not gain strength within their prison. As George said, to me it's common sense. These people were put in prison for supporting a terrorist group that harms innocent Americans. The article even stated that Lindh had given a radical speech to his fellow Muslims in Arabic this February. Clearly he has different intentions than simply praying with his peers as his past shows. I think we should ask, "By letting Lindh pray with other Muslims, is there a risk of a terrorist uprise in the prison?" I think the answer is yes, judging by his incarceration and his speech in February. Therefore I do not believe Lindh should be afforded the right to practice Islam with other prisoners.
ReplyDeleteOnce you enter prison, most of your rights are stripped away. At the same time, however, as a human being, you are still supposed to be afforded basic rights, but, do these basic rights extend to practice of religion? Basically, I see the argument boiling down to this: if the Court can rule against the Muslims in prison gathering for prayer, in another language, because their religious freedom rights are revoked once entering prison, then fine--no religious gatherings in prison. On the other hand, if the Court cannot distinguish between not wanting the Taliban to gather in prison and harmless Muslims praying, how can they justly not let the gatherings happen, they need a solid leg to stand on to keep the prayers from happening, if that is the way they want to decide on this matter.
ReplyDeleteLike many others that have commented, I too agree with the federal government preventing the religious congregation of inmates who have direct ties to terrorist organizations. However, I believe that there is a very fine line that goes along with cases like the one from the article. While most of us have agreed that in the interest of national freedom it is ok to keep these prisoners from congregating for prayer, it is important to consider the implications of such an action. Although it is being used to combat terrorism now there is always the potential that it is a dangerous precedent to set for the future. Could it be used against all muslims in prison? What about for the entire prison population? I certainly understand why the government doesn't want known terrorists to communicate in groups in a foreign language, but I just think anytime the government is stripping away someone's rights the reasoning, application, and execution should be closely scrutinized. It is understandable why this issue is so controversial, and I have reservations about it myself, but in the end I think the fact that the case involves prisoners (who are known terrorists) and not normal citizens makes it not only acceptable but also necessary for the government to strip away their freedom of religious assembly.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the language barrier in this circumstance is causing unease among the prison officials due to the possibility of safety concerns; however, I have several issues with the entire situation. First, the article mentions that “members of other faiths also are limited in when and how they can gather at the prison,” but the article fails to indicate to what degree inmates of other religions are restricted. Are inmates of these other religions limited with the same amount of strictness as are the Muslim inmates? I think those types of details would make a big difference in this case. Furthermore, I agree with Fran Watson; such an influential policy (not allowing Muslims to gather for group prayer in prisons) cannot be based on the words or actions of one individual. Not only is such an approach unfair to peaceful Muslims, but, if this tactic were to be used in every situation that arises from turmoil, it seems that it would become almost tyrannical.
ReplyDelete