The right way to look at the First Amendment

LET ME BEGIN by explaining that I am a moderate conservative. Therefore sometimes my views may seem to contradict each other.

For example, I am pro life, yet I think stem cell research should continue. There are two opposing views to the argument of ethics with regards to this issue. And when public education of the facts reaches the necessary level, it will dispel many misconceptions surrounding the controversy (more on this in a future column).

Next, I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment establishment clause, better known as separation of church and state. Yet I find it difficult to embrace a system that prohibits any form of religion in our public schools, but goes to the opposite extreme to “accommodate” an incarcerated felon’s right to practice their religion in a state funded prison.

This argument stems from an Ohio prison in which several prisoners who practiced Satanism, Wicca and other non-mainstream religions claimed their right to free religious exercise had been violated under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA) of 2000.

ON MAY 31, 2005, the United States Supreme Court upheld the act and issued an opinion in Cutter v. Wilkinson that states, “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution.”

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that every person has the right to practice whatever religion they chose whether it be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Satanism, mojo-who-doism or whatever.

My problem is, how can you justify judiciary actions that condone the religious observances of convicted criminals in state funded institutions with the same amendment you use to prohibit the free exercise of religious activities on public school grounds?

I argue that our children are forced to attend state funded educational facilities and should be deemed residents of that particular governmental institution for as many hours of the day as the state has deemed mandatory for student attendance.

THEREFORE, ALL STUDENTS should be provided the same opportunities to the free exercise of their religion as anyone else, especially a convicted felon whose societary judgement has already been compromised.

Furthermore, these institutions have the same obligation to “accommodate” our nation’s youths as they do convicted felons.

The primary intent of this column was to give my readers some insight as to my views. In future columns, I will present at least two sides of an issue. But I have a challenge for every reader. Each week I want you to e-mail your comments on my column to [email protected].

Each week I will choose up to two statements that best describe the views of the readers and present these comments in the next week’s issue. You’re also encouraged to send comments on issues that you want me to addressed in future columns.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>