On Tuesday the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari (judicial review) in the case of Forsyth County, North Carolina v. Joyner, which challenged the local government’s opening prayer policy. In this instance, Forsyth County had constructed an ”inclusive” (and thus theoretically constitutionally protected) model where all comers could have a turn, but challengers to the policy noted that the prayers were overwhelmingly Christian, and created a chilling atmosphere towards non-Christian faiths.

On Joyner and Blackmon’s account, the overall atmosphere made them feel distinctly unwelcome and “coerced by [their] government into endorsing a Christian prayer.” Blackmon claimed that she felt compelled to stand and bow her head because of the Chair’s instruction to stand and because of the audience’s response. Joyner offered a similar account, believing that if she had failed to comply, it would have “negatively prejudice[d] consideration of [her] intended petition as a citizen appearing for public comment.” Both characterized the prayer as sectarian, with Blackmon referring to it as including a “one-minute sermon.”

During the period contested in the lawsuit, four-fifths of the prayers referred to “Jesus” in one form or another. The 4th Circuit made very clear that the lack of balance in presented prayers was an important factor in ruling that Forsyth’s policy violated the Establishment Clause.

“…legislative prayer must strive to be nondenominational so long as that is reasonably possible — itshould send a signal of welcome rather than exclusion. Itshould not reject the tenets of other faiths in favor of just one.Infrequent references to specific deities, standing alone, donot suffice to make out a constitutional case. But legislativeprayers that go further — prayers in a particular venue that repeatedly suggest the government has put its weight behinda particular faith — transgress the boundaries of the Establishment Clause. Faith is as deeply important as it is deeply personal, and the government should not appear to suggestthat some faiths have it wrong and others got it right.”

This skirmish over prayer before government meetings is just the latest in a protracted struggle between the ACLU and the more socially conservative-minded Alliance Defense Fund. While the ACLU is generally skeptical of allegedly inclusive sectarian open prayer models, the Alliance Defense Fund believes them to be constitutionally protected, and part of America’s heritage. Responding to this setback, the ADF said that “the standard for prayer policies in the 4th Circuit will be different from the standard held by the rest of the country.”

“No federal court has ruled that prayers cannot be offered before public meetings. The Supreme Court has simply missed an opportunity to clear up the differing opinions among the various circuits about the content of the prayers. This means that, for the time being, the standard for prayer policies in the 4th Circuit will be different from the standard held by the rest of the country. ADF will continue to litigate in favor of the historical standard until the Supreme Court eventually hears a case that will clear up the confusion.”

The Alliance Defense Fund had a lot invested in this case, and other cases like this, as Forsyth was following their blueprint for protected government sectarian prayer. A blueprint partially constructed around two 4th Circuit cases involving public prayers and modern Pagans: Simpson v. Chesterfield County, the case that helped create the so-called “Wiccan-proof” invocation policy, and the Darla Wynne case, in which a Wiccan from South Carolina won a battle against sectarian government prayer. Despite the fact that towns like Greece, New York and Lancaster, California have won lower-court challenges by including a smattering of minority religions in sectarian prayers (aka the “include a Wiccan gambit”), the law isn’t settled on what, if any, formula for sectarian prayer at a government meeting will pass constitutional muster. It can be folly to read too much into a denied certiorari request, but by letting this decision stand, a decision that invokes both Simpson’s and Wynne’s cases, SCOTUS does leave the idea that balance is necessary in a sectarian prayer model on the table.

Cynthia Simpson and Darla Wynne

Eventually, SCOTUS will have to make a stand on these sectarian prayer policies, just as it recently took a stand on the question of “ministerial exception.” A concept that had been invoked several times in the lower courts, but never in our nation’s highest court. When it does, cases that involve Wiccans and other minority faiths will have a major influence on how that decision is made. In the meantime, Americans United, the ACLU, the Alliance Defense Fund, and several other advocacy groups, will try to build up their positions in the lower courts. No doubt several towns and cities who fall under the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals are currently talking with their lawyers over their prayer policies, and whether they need to include more Wiccans.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which centered on the question of whether an employee of a religious organization could be fired without recourse to anti-discrimination laws if they were ordained within said faith. The case heard by the Supreme Court involved a teacher at a Lutheran school who was fired due to a sleep disorder. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, backed by the Justice Department, felt that her role at the school was largely secular in nature, and shouldn’t fall under the exceptions usually given to clergy within religious groups. However, the court, in a rare unanimous ruling, sided with Hosanna-Tabor Church, and for the first time, acknowledged that a ministerial exception from federal discrimination laws does exist.

The Supreme Court of the United States

“Closing the courthouse door much of the way, but not completely, to workplace bias lawsuits by church employees who act as ministers to their denominations, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously gave its blessing — for the first time — to a “ministerial exception” to federal, state and local laws against virtually all forms of discrimination on the job.  The Court’s ruling, which only Justice Clarence Thomas said did not go far enough, did not order courts to throw out all such lawsuits as beyond their jurisdiction, but it left them with only a narrow inquiry before the likely order of dismissal would come down.  As soon as the denomination makes its point that it counts an employee as a “minister,” within its internal definition, that is probably the end of the case.  And the employee could be anyone from the congregational leader, on down to any worker considered to be advancing the religious mission.”

In short, ministerial exception involves not only ministers, but any employee who is performing religious work within a faith group. This was plainly expressed in the concurring opinion of Justice Alito and Justice Kagan, who noted that many religions do not use the term “minister” and that “courts should focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies.”

“The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious groups to engage in certain key religious activities, including the conducting of worship services and other religiousceremonies and rituals, as well as the critical process of communicating the faith.  Accordingly, religious groupsmust be free to choose the personnel who are essential tothe performance of these functions. The “ministerial” exception should be tailored to this purpose. It should apply to any “employee” who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith. If a religious group believes that the ability of such an employee to perform these key functions has been compromised, then the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom protects the group’s right to remove the employee from his or her position.”

This concurring opinion will no doubt be very welcome to a coalition of minority faiths, the Muslim-American Public Affairs Council, United Sikhs, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, O Centro Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, and Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha, who filed an amicus brief in this case  warning that they were particularly susceptible to judicial encroachment, and that their faiths often categorize what might be seen as “secular” work within a sacred context.

“…many seemingly secular activities take on deep religious significance within specific faith traditions. For Sikhs, for example, operating a community kitchen and providing meals (langar) to the needy and vulnerable is an indispensible element of religious worship. For some temple-centric religions, the actual process of constructing a temple carries deep religious significance. Hindu temple architects and artisans follow ancient religious traditions in their work. For others, temple overseers may be tasked specifically to ensure that construction workers follow religion-based standards and refrain from profane acts that might desecrate the temple. For other religious organizations, meditation is a form of worship, distributing aid through prescribed means is an essential sacred ritual, and counseling and healing are acts inspired by deity. But because such religious functions – at least from the external view – may be indistinguishable from the same activities carried out for secular purposes, courts trying to parse the sacred from the profane jeopardize the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their own sacred missions.”

The court agreed with this view, noting that the “amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing that employee’s status, but that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed.” Justice Roberts went on to say that the lower court’s ruling “placed too much emphasis on Perich’s performance of secular duties.”

I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that this is a landmark ruling, enshrining the concept of ministerial exception in our highest court, and all but eliminating workplace discrimination suits if the plaintiff performs a significant religious role within an organization. That said, the court did stress that this doesn’t protect religious organizations from criminal investigation or other kinds of litigation, and should only be applied to the hiring and firing of “ministers”. How broad or narrow the understanding of “ministerial” duties will be is something that will no doubt be settled in the courts for years to come. For minority faiths, it seems to signal that the ministerial exception isn’t isolated to traditional minister-congregational models, and can be applied to any number of religious situations. What the ramifications might be for adherents to non-Christians models of worship and work remains to be seen.

You can read my original post regarding this story, here. For extensive links to documents and analysis of this case, do check out the information-packed SCOTUSblog.

Tomorrow I’ll be on a flight to Maryland for the 2011 FaerieCon event, at which I’ll be conducting interviews, taking pictures, and moderating panel discussions (in addition to seeing Qntal in concert).

Since I’m not sure I’ll have enough time to blog properly while also covering the event, I’ve arranged a variety of guest-posters during my absence to keep the lights on here at The Wild Hunt. Tomorrow we’ll be featuring a guest-post from Patheos columnist and Killing the Buddha Contributing Editor Eric Scott, and we have several other wonderful Pagan voices lined in the days to follow. Patheos Pagan Portal manager Star Foster will be behind the scenes making sure the trains run on time. I’ll return on Tuesday, and should have some great coverage to share when I get back!

In the meantime, before I go, here are some news stories I’d like to share with you.

• On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists. The case regarded large metal crosses in Utah erected along the highway to honor state highway patrol officers who died in the line of duty. At the heart of this issue was if the Christian cross could be considered a secular symbol of death. The 10th Circuit Court rejected this notion, noting the obvious fact that a Christian symbol cannot represent all peoples and religions in the United States. Now, with certiorari denied, and the 10th Circuit decision upheld, Utah will have to dismantle the crosses.
• Reverend Carlton Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice writes an op-ed for Religion Dispatches calling the pro-life “personhood” agenda “theocratic” in nature. Quote: “in the fashion of those who are determined to embed their religious views in law, there is no acknowledgement that there are other, equally valid views. Because there are a variety of views on such a basic question as “the beginning of life,” the constitution guarantees that decisions about contraception and abortion will be protected by law. And that is where the matter should rest.”
• A Slate.com article on female craft beer producers reminds us that it was women (and goddesses) who gave us the gift of beer. Quote: “Brewing is currently seen as a male field, but it wasn’t always this way. What’s believed to be the world’s oldest written recipe is for beer, and it celebrates a female brewmaster. Four-thousand-year-old Mesopotamian clay tablets describe the brewing process in a hymn to Ninkasi, the Sumerian goddess of beer. From ancient Sumeria through medieval Europe, women ruled the kettles.”
• Finally, in a bit of Pagan Newswire Collective news, I’d like to welcome Lupa and Eli Effinger-Weintraub to their new roles as writers for No Unsacred Place, the PNC’s nature and environmental issues blog. I look forward to their contributions!

That’s all I have for now, enjoy the guest-posts, see you on Tuesday!

On Wednesday the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that could have serious ramifications on what’s known as “ministerial exception” at institutions run by religious organizations. Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission centers on a teacher at a Lutheran school who was fired due to a sleep disorder. The church is claiming that the teacher’s position falls under ministerial exception, and is therefore exempt from any discrimination proceedings, while the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, backed by the Justice Department, feels that her role at the school was largely secular in nature, and shouldn’t fall under the exceptions usually given to clergy within religious groups.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl and Chief Justice John Roberts

“The core question before the Justices, in responding to the broad argument for an exception, is how to define the scope of duties of parochial school teachers like Cheryl Perich.   If the decision is that Ms. Perich was a minister, anti-bias laws cannot shield her in the workplace; if she was not, she is then like any other worker, protected against discrimination on the job.   In her case, the claim is that she was discriminated against because of her physical health problems and her insistence on her legal rights — in short, she was allegedly the victim of retaliation, in violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.”

While all the expected big players in American religion, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches, and the National Association of Evangelicals, are backing the church, and a broad interpretation of ministerial exception, so too are a number of minority religions in the United States.

“Defending the school is a coalition of small and sometimes-obscure religious groups. They include the Muslim-American Public Affairs Council, United Sikhs, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, O Centro Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal and Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha.”

In their amicus brief, this coalition of minority religions say they are particularly susceptible to judicial encroachment, and that their faiths often categorize what might be seen as “secular” work within a sacred context.

“…many seemingly secular activities take on deep religious significance within specific faith traditions. For Sikhs, for example, operating a community kitchen and providing meals (langar) to the needy and vulnerable is an indispensible element of religious worship. For some temple-centric religions, the actual process of constructing a temple carries deep religious significance. Hindu temple architects and artisans follow ancient religious traditions in their work. For others, temple overseers may be tasked specifically to ensure that construction workers follow religion-based standards and refrain from profane acts that might desecrate the temple. For other religious organizations, meditation is a form of worship, distributing aid through prescribed means is an essential sacred ritual, and counseling and healing are acts inspired by deity. But because such religious functions – at least from the external view – may be indistinguishable from the same activities carried out for secular purposes, courts trying to parse the sacred from the profane jeopardize the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their own sacred missions.”

Interestingly, the Unitarian Universalist Association, filing along with the ACLU and American United, takes a very different view of this case. In their opinion, a generous interpretation of the exception shields groups engaging in abusive or exploitative actions.

“The ministerial exception is designed to allow religious bodies to practice their religion and convey their message without government interference. But the exception thwarts society’s interest in ending discrimination—without serving the exception’s purpose—when applied to shield a religious entity from liability for discrimination or retaliation that is unrelated to religious ideology. As a result, in applying the ministerial exception, courts can and should use their considerable experience in determining whether sincere religious views animated a litigant’s conduct. And the Constitution provides no bar to this enterprise.”

It all comes down to viewpoint. For minority groups like Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye or O Centro Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, who have both gone to the Supreme Court to protect their beliefs and practices, the less power the government has to pass judgment on their practices, the better. For the UUA, and the civil liberties groups who often represent minority faiths in court, it’s about accountability and justice.

“The American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of religious-liberty groups filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, considered by many to be one of the most important religious liberty cases in years.  The brief argues that although churches certainly have a constitutional right to religious autonomy, that right is not absolute, and religious organizations do not have the right to discriminate based on non-religious grounds. Religious institutions should be given some leeway in hiring practices in order to express and practice their faith. For example, a Catholic church need not hire a female priest and an Orthodox Jewish congregation need not hire a female rabbi if doing so would violate their religious tenets. However, this ministerial exception should not apply to discriminatory decisions that have nothing to do with religious doctrine.”

So how will SCOTUS rule? Well, a good preview might be Sylvia Spencer v. World Vision Inc in which the 9th Circuit Court ruled that the religious non-profit organization could hire and fire workers based on religion. That decision was just denied certiorari, meaning they’re allowing the ruling to stand. Is it a harbinger? Will the six Catholic justices find themselves moved by their own church’s position on this case? SCOTUS will have to decide how far the First Amendment reaches, or as law professor Richard W. Garnett put it: “Does a government like ours, limited by a provision like our First Amendment, have the authority to second-guess a religious community’s decision — even a decision that seems wrongheaded or objectionable — about who should be its religious teacher, leader, or minister?” What do you think?

There are lots of articles and essays of interest to modern Pagans out there, sometimes more than I can write about in-depth in any given week. So The Wild Hunt must unleash the hounds in order to round them all up.

• First off, congratulations to all same-sex couples in the state of New York, who will soon have the right to get married. Huzzah! New York is the sixth, and largest, state to legalize gay marriage. I’m sure there are plenty of Pagan officiants ready and willing to perform the matrimonial honors! You can read my Washington Post piece about religious exemptions to the just-passed bill, here. For more on Paganism and gay marriage, click here. Is this the tipping point? I’m hoping to spotlight some voices from New York on this issue soon!
• An article on environmentalism and religion has a somewhat odd assertion by Celtic Reconstructionist LaQuetta Purkiss, who claims that while “Wiccans tend to be liberal and favor government restrictions, Celtic Reconstructionists like herself lean more conservative and often oppose federal government intervention, unless industries or individuals refuse to regulate themselves.” Which made me scratch my head, since that doesn’t seem to accurately describe the political/environmental stances of prominent Celtic Reconstructionists like Kathryn Price NicDhàna, Erynn Rowan Laurie, or P. Sufenas Virius Lupus. Here’s what the CR FAQ has to say about the movement’s ethical basis. Is there a strong libertarian streak in CR concerning environmental policy that I’ve missed?
• CNN”s Belief Blog highlights more Native voices in the wake of the James Arthur Ray verdict. Valerie Taliman, who I quoted in my recent round-up of reactions, tells CNN that “according to our teachings, what he’s done to these people will come back on him over a lifetime [...] let’s see how spiritually grounded he is now.” In related post-verdict news, the Atlantic Wire looks at people who bought Ray’s shtick (Oprah,  Larry King, The Today Show, and the American public), and Time Magazine does a reactions piece as well. Remember, this case isn’t over. There’s sentencing, and the inevitable appeals down the road.
• Is there anything more charming than Christian rappers? The Calgary Herald spotlights MashetiMoses, a Catholic rapper who talks about escaping from his godless ‘pagan’ past. “He describes being raised in a ‘pagan’ household with no religion whatsoever. His mother used to make a living reading Tarot cards and being a psychic. ”We had all sorts of weird idols in the house,” he says.” Sadly, even the best of upbringings sometimes can’t stop someone from following in the footsteps of DC Talk.
• Speaking of Christians, some of them are holding vigils outside a pub in Dorset. Why? “We aim to hold peaceful vigils outside occult events, in the hope of turning people away from the path of evil towards God’s love.” Look, if you really want to turn us away from the path of wickedness, maybe you should have a pint (or two) with us, instead of praying and going on like some cartoon stereotype.
• According to High Mountain Tempel, they are the “San Diego’s most occult band.” Sounds like the gauntlet’s been thrown down! Then again, I assume that would be an easier hill to climb than being the “most occult” band in the Bay Area. I merely remark.
• Come to Iceland! Attend a Pagan ceremony!
• Is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia really ignorant about the doctrine of discovery?
• Amy Levin at The Revealer looks at occult practices and Islam in Iran.
• Damon Albarn (Gorillaz, Blur) has written and will star in a new opera about John Dee. You know, the guy who gave us the Enochian language, and consulted Queen Elizabeth I.

That’s it for now! Feel free to discuss any of these links in the comments, some of these I may expand into longer posts as needed.

[The following is a guest post from Patrick McCollum. McCollum is an expert on the treatment of Pagans in the United States prison system, and has given testimony to the US Commission on Civil Rights on that issue. He is also fighting the discriminatory “5 Faiths” policy in California’s prison system, a case that has been in litigation for over five years, and is currently before the 9th Circuit.]

In reviewing the recent Supreme Court’s ruling in Sossamon v. Texas, where the court found that inmates could not sue for monetary damages if a State institution violated their religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), I find it unfortunate that there is little or no recourse against government officials who knowingly violate the law. This is particularly concerning as in almost every case where these issues are in litigation, the rights which are being denied are the rights of the minority faiths, and those who are denying those rights are primarily the majority faith. In other words, the big story here is not in the little squabbles over who gets a wand, or a Kofi cap, or who gets to participate in a sweat lodge, it is really the unsung battle between the majority faith that is in power and wants to suppress the competition, and those fighting for religious freedom and equality! RLUIPA was enacted primarily to protect the religious rights of minority faiths in prison. If it has no bite or force behind it, who or what is going to compel religious bigots to treat their brothers and sisters of other faiths equally? After a hundred years of a system that has clearly shown it is prejudicial in this regard, the answer is quite clear. Nobody!

Rev. Patrick McCollum

There is also a second “gotcha” in the ruling. In these cases, there are two primary types of damages. Monetary damages, and Injunctive Relief damages. Under the law, if a case brought by an inmate has potential monetary damages, then the case goes on until it is decided, even if the inmate serves his or her term and gets out. In the case of Injunctive Relief damages, if the inmate gets out the case becomes moot, because there is no remedy for the inmate to receive once he/she is free, as the discrimination will automatically stop due to the fact that the inmate is no longer under the jurisdiction of the State. In other words, the state can knowingly discriminate against a minority faith inmate for years, with full knowledge that because of the many years it takes to go through the court system, in the end, the case will most likely become moot, which lets them entirely off the hook and free to repeat the same discriminatory behavior against the next minority faith inmate. I might also add, that if the case becomes moot, that means that the attorneys representing the inmates don’t get paid because the case never comes to an end! Consequently, attorneys taking these cases Pro Bono can no longer do so as there is no compensation even if the case is valid and the State was at fault.

As to the Court’s ruling, there are actually two separate principles or issues involved here. First there is the concern that inmates bring frivolous lawsuits against the state, and this in fact does happen. Consequently the courts have struggled to find some way to reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits by inmates so that states are not overburdened with excessive cost and litigation. By taking away the possibility of monetary damages for most inmate lawsuits through various lower court decisions, there has been a significant drop in frivolous inmate lawsuits, and this has helped the situation.

On the other hand, there are some inmate claims which are legitimate. For example, inmates are guaranteed certain of the same rights under the Constitution as we are, one of those being the fundamental right to freedom of religion without coercion or restriction by the government. Something at stake here which was not likely being considered by the court in its ruling, and was probably not one of the claims presented, (legal cases like these are often complex, as only the specific claims made by the inmates are considered in making a ruling. Hence, if inmates made specific claims requesting monetary damages, but did not include in the claim that monetary damages were necessary to provide incentives to compel the State to follow the law, then the court would only rule on the issue of monetary damages in itself, because no evidence was provided to show that the state is intentionally discriminating on the basis of religion and has no intention of following the law unless there are consequences) is the fact that religious discrimination against minority faiths is rampant in the prison systems, and that many prison systems knowingly violate the law because they know that no one can do anything to them, as they are, as they see it, “above the law!” That said and to be fair, there are a number of prison systems which are trying to change their behavior in recent years, and some states have made significant progress.

One thing that particularly concerns me on this issue of prison administrators considering themselves to be above the law, and which I bring up at many correctional conferences, is the immorality of being the agency that is empowered to punish inmates for openly violating our laws, and then taking the position that they, the agency who is responsible for the administration of this punishment and also for the rehabilitation of the inmates in their care, directly and openly violate our laws too, and then thumb their noses at the inmates to show them that the law doesn’t apply to them. I believe this both promotes the wrong message to the inmates, and also promotes corruption in the system. If we want to have a just world, then those who wield justice have to be held accountable just the same as the rest of us.

Now, that the court has made this ruling, what will have to happen is that inmates and outside parties suing on behalf of inmates will need to file a different suit which addresses this secondary and much larger issue!

In closing I’d like to say, that many people don’t consider these issues all that important because they apply to inmates who many consider already deserving of mistreatment. But it’s important to remember that prisons are where the rubber hits the road, and that many of the decisions made there as to what our constitutional rights are, also end up directly affecting our rights here on the outside. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we going to be a nation where everyone is governed by our Constitution, where we all reap the benefits and burdens placed upon it by us, or are we going to be a country where a certain privileged class gets special dispensation, especially if they adhere to the dominant faith, and where discrimination against the rest of us is considered to be just one of the acceptable downsides for deciding to worship differently.

For more on Patrick McCollum’s work in the United States prison system, see this recent PNC-Minnesota interview. You may also want to read my own commentary on this SCOTUS ruling.

As I mentioned on Tuesday of this week, PNC-Minnesota is running a special series on Pagans in prison. In addition to the interview with chaplain and Pagan rights activist Patrick McCollum, they have now posted two new interviews, one with Wisconsin religious volunteer Wade Mueller, and one with George A Edgar, Wiccan Minister and Pagan Prison Religious Volunteer at three Minnesota Correctional Institutions.

“The important decisions about what inmates can have or do in their religious practice are made by those that are least qualified and educated to do so [...]  it is the guards and the chaplains who decide what goes on. When you get to the upper echelon, the Warden or the Department of Corrections, and they get excited, you tend to see draconian measures because they don’t want any headaches. They see things very practically, and the Pagans represent a slippery slope. They had to cave into the Native Americans. They allow outdoor ritual, the sweat lodge, the use of tobacco, now what if the Druids want that too? If you can get three or four guys together and a religious volunteer, you become a legitimate religious group. All of a sudden you may have thirty outdoor rituals a week, with special guards and space requirements. Where is the funding, where are the extra staff? They just don’t want the headache. They want to stop this as best they can.”

More interviews are on the way, do check out this important series.

While I’m on the topic of Pagans in prison, there’s been an important ruling that could affect many inmates litigating for their religious rights. Religion News Service reports that a recent Supreme Court ruling eliminates the possibility of obtaining monetary damages for cases brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

“Prison inmates who are deprived of their religious rights cannot sue states for monetary damages, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday (April 20). [...] Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that under RLUIPA prisoners can sue to change prison polices but not seek financial redress. Texas does not forgo its “sovereign immunity” when it accepts federal money to run its prisons, Thomas said.”

This represents a major sea change in religious rights cases, making it nearly impossible to put any pressure on prisons to truly reform (they can simply change the policy when it becomes inconvenient, with no risk of harming their budget). SCOTUSblog commentator Lyle Denniston notes the decision may go even farther than the issue of monetary damages to the issue of whether the federal government can compel states to respect the religious rights of prisoners.

“In addition, the opinion, somewhat threateningly, implied that there may be a significant question about Congress’s authority under its spending or commerce-regulation power even to pass the kind of law at issue in this case: a law seeking to compel states to respect the religious rights of persons in prisons and other state-run institutions. The Court said in a footnote that no one had raised those questions, so the decision did not pass upon them.  That kind of comment, though, could be seen by at least some states as a hint that they might attempt such a challenge to that federal obligation.”

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, who filed a joint amicus brief alongside the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Jewish Committee, and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, said they were “disappointed in the majority’s pinched view of what was a clear congressional intent to provide prisoners broad protection for religious liberty and a robust remedy for its violation, including monetary damages.” The brief notes that “non-monetary remedies are woefully inadequate,” and the ramifications of this ruling could have a chilling effect on the rights of prisoners to freely practice their religion(s).