Justices Allow Execution of Muslim Death Row Inmate Who Sought Imam

[jimbo]

There should be no priests, imams, ministers or any faith leader allowed to be an employee of the state, in that capacity.

This includes chaplains.

The government should not be in the business of hiring ministers

A valid point. If the government hires any religious person specifically because of their religion, isn't the government violating the first?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Interesting case. the Imam was allowed to visit him before the execution, but only a Christian minister was allowed to be with him in the execution chamber.

On one hand, this would seem to clearly violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but the prison said this was because the Chaplain was an employee, and only employees were allowed in the execution chamber.

So, does Alabama need to hire ministers of other faiths? That would seem awkward. Better yet would be to allow the condemned to have the minister of their choice in the execution chamber. Therefore, that rule needs to be changed.

By the way, I don't give 2 craps about the prisoner. What I do care about is that SCOTUS clearly ruled that an unconstitutional rule was constitutional. Church and state are no longer separated, according to SCOTUS, as one religion has been favored over another.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/...-domineque-ray.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur.

Actually the rule/law doesn't need to be changed necessarily. Just followed as written.

https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-15-criminal-procedure/al-code-sect-15-18-83.html

"Alabama Code Title 15. Criminal Procedure § 15-18-83


(a) The following persons may be present at an execution and none other:

(1) The executioner and any persons necessary to assist in conducting the execution.

(2) The Commissioner of Corrections or his or her representative.

(3) Two physicians, including the prison physician.

(4) The spiritual advisor of the condemned.

(5) The chaplain of Holman Prison.

(6) Such newspaper reporters as may be admitted by the warden.

(7) Any of the relatives or friends of the condemned person that he or she may request, not exceeding six in number.

(8) The immediate family of the victim, over the age of 19, not exceeding eight in number and apportioned equally among the victim's immediate family members.  If there are fewer than six total immediate family members of the deceased victim, additional immediate family members of a victim, for whose death the inmate is not sentenced to death.

(b) No convict shall be permitted by the prison authorities to witness the execution.

 

[trouble13]

Good Lord! Are you kidding? Are you really this oblivious? Do yourself favor and get a copy of the constitution and actually read it. Slowly.

Good lord are you really this ignorant of what the constitution protects. It's a document that limits the government's authority over you.

The establishment clause does not say the government must provide you with a clergy member of your choice. What it does is prevents the Gov from interfering with your freedom to practice any religion you desire.

If you said hey I think they should allow a person of the Muslim faith to have their Iman present for last rites, I am empathetic to that. That however is not what you and others are not arguing, instead you're taking it way to far claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated and the government has an obligation to provide everyone with a cleric of their choosing. Sorry but it's not only wrong its patently ridiculous to think that prisons are required to employ clergy from every faith so that they can be present upon request for someone who is incarcerated and civil rights under currently suspended.

I dont mean to be rude or insult anyone but it's a stupid arguement. The prison providing a chaplain is a luxury not an obligation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[justabubba]

Good lord are you really this ignorant of what the constitution protects. It's a document that limits the government's authority over you.

The establishment clause does not say the government must provide you with a clergy member of your choice. What it does is prevents the Gov from interfering with your freedom to practice any religion you desire.

If you said hey I think they should allow a person of the Muslim faith to have their Iman present for last rites, I am empathetic to that. That however is not what you and others are not arguing, instead you're taking it way to far claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated and the government has an obligation to provide everyone with a cleric of their choosing. Sorry but it's not only wrong its patently ridiculous to think that prisons are required to employ clergy from every faith so that they can be present upon request for someone who is incarcerated and civil rights under currently suspended.

I dont mean to be rude or insult anyone but it's a stupid arguement. The prison providing a chaplain is a luxury not an obligation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

why is this "luxury" offered ONLY in Christian form?

 

[danarhea]

Good lord are you really this ignorant of what the constitution protects. It's a document that limits the government's authority over you.

The establishment clause does not say the government must provide you with a clergy member of your choice. What it does is prevents the Gov from interfering with your freedom to practice any religion you desire.

If you said hey I think they should allow a person of the Muslim faith to have their Iman present for last rites, I am empathetic to that. That however is not what you and others are not arguing, instead you're taking it way to far claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated and the government has an obligation to provide everyone with a cleric of their choosing. Sorry but it's not only wrong its patently ridiculous to think that prisons are required to employ clergy from every faith so that they can be present upon request for someone who is incarcerated and civil rights under currently suspended.

I dont mean to be rude or insult anyone but it's a stupid arguement. The prison providing a chaplain is a luxury not an obligation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Damn, you just hoisted yourself on your own petard. LMAO.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Good lord are you really this ignorant of what the constitution protects. It's a document that limits the government's authority over you.

The establishment clause does not say the government must provide you with a clergy member of your choice. What it does is prevents the Gov from interfering with your freedom to practice any religion you desire.

If you said hey I think they should allow a person of the Muslim faith to have their Iman present for last rites, I am empathetic to that. That however is not what you and others are not arguing, instead you're taking it way to far claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated and the government has an obligation to provide everyone with a cleric of their choosing. Sorry but it's not only wrong its patently ridiculous to think that prisons are required to employ clergy from every faith so that they can be present upon request for someone who is incarcerated and civil rights under currently suspended.

I dont mean to be rude or insult anyone but it's a stupid arguement. The prison providing a chaplain is a luxury not an obligation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You're the king of stupid arguments. So I can see that a history lesson is in order here. Many, if not most of those who chose to come to America from Europe originally did so in order to flee the oppression of the church/state so they could openly and freely practice the religion of their choice without fear of oppression and or sanction. That is the core meaning of 'religious freedom' as the founding fathers understood it. To them them the 'separation of church and state' was an essential component to maintaining that freedom. Because history had shown that whenever church and state combined in Europe repression followed. The establishment clause essentially means that the government shall make no law, regulation, etc. that favors or promotes one religion over another. It's the reason why where the Constitution outlined the qualifications for elective office it explicitly says there would be "no religious test" for any federal elected office or appointed position. In other words no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

Really this Alabama case would really seem to be a like a 3rd grade level example of a violation of the Establishment clause.

 

[trouble13]

why is this "luxury" offered ONLY in Christian form?

I dont know that's true but if it is it's a good question.

Should the state employ satanic clerics for devil worshippers too?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

You're the king of stupid arguments. So I can see that a history lesson is in order here. Many, if not most of those who chose to come to America from Europe originally did so in order to flee the oppression of the church/state so they could openly and freely practice the religion of their choice without fear of oppression and or sanction. That is the core meaning of 'religious freedom' as the founding fathers understood it. To them them the 'separation of church and state' was an essential component to maintaining that freedom. Because history had shown that whenever church and state combined in Europe repression followed. The establishment clause essentially means that the government shall make no law, regulation, etc. that favors or promotes one religion over another. It's the reason why where the Constitution outlined the qualifications for elective office it explicitly says there would be "no religious test" for any federal elected office or appointed position. In other words no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

Really this Alabama case would really seem to be a like a 3rd grade level example of a violation of the Establishment clause.

It isnt. If you think it is demonstrate how. The state has no legal obligation to provide someone any king of a cleric let alone one they select. Prisons are secular institutions. They dont endorse or sanction any particular denomination.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Hoo boy, did THAT ever go over your head. LOL.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

the simple solution-he can meet with whatever chaplain, minister, shaman or priest prior to the execution but none will be present in the death chamber.

 

[TurtleDude]

You're the king of stupid arguments. So I can see that a history lesson is in order here. Many, if not most of those who chose to come to America from Europe originally did so in order to flee the oppression of the church/state so they could openly and freely practice the religion of their choice without fear of oppression and or sanction. That is the core meaning of 'religious freedom' as the founding fathers understood it. To them them the 'separation of church and state' was an essential component to maintaining that freedom. Because history had shown that whenever church and state combined in Europe repression followed. The establishment clause essentially means that the government shall make no law, regulation, etc. that favors or promotes one religion over another. It's the reason why where the Constitution outlined the qualifications for elective office it explicitly says there would be "no religious test" for any federal elected office or appointed position. In other words no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

Really this Alabama case would really seem to be a like a 3rd grade level example of a violation of the Establishment clause.

the founders' concept of this right is a bit different than the current views. the main point was to not have what England had-a requirement that the leader of the country be head of the Church of England (or in the case of some other European nations-Roman Catholics). The solution of course-Prisons shouldn't be providing ministers or priests

 

[Fletch]

Good now the two of you can do a group study. Or you can just go back to school again and this time try to stay awake.

Or you could answer the question.

 

[Fletch]

You're the king of stupid arguments. So I can see that a history lesson is in order here. Many, if not most of those who chose to come to America from Europe originally did so in order to flee the oppression of the church/state so they could openly and freely practice the religion of their choice without fear of oppression and or sanction. That is the core meaning of 'religious freedom' as the founding fathers understood it. To them them the 'separation of church and state' was an essential component to maintaining that freedom. Because history had shown that whenever church and state combined in Europe repression followed. The establishment clause essentially means that the government shall make no law, regulation, etc. that favors or promotes one religion over another. It's the reason why where the Constitution outlined the qualifications for elective office it explicitly says there would be "no religious test" for any federal elected office or appointed position. In other words no federal officeholder or employee can be required to adhere to or accept any particular religion or doctrine as a prerequisite to holding a federal office or a federal government job.

Really this Alabama case would really seem to be a like a 3rd grade level example of a violation of the Establishment clause.

But in most cases, '3rd graders' dont know what they are talking about. And your post is a good example of that. Just as the freedom of speech does not require the state to provide you with a microphone, freedom of religion does not require the state to provide you with a priest, rabbi, Imam or anything else. You might be able to make a 14th Amendment argument here over equal protection, but that would only likely lead to the end of ANY religious leader being offered to anyone.

 

[tosca1]

Hoo boy, did THAT ever go over your head. LOL.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The chaplain is an employee! The chaplain was excluded from the chamber (deferring to the prisoner's request). How was the free exercise of the inmate violated?