Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jewel · 05-10-2003, 06:01 AM

A Florida inmates refusal to pray results in more jail time.

Article found here .

Quote:

Whatever rights Laurel Clanton lost when she was sentenced to a year in the Duval County jail, she never believed the right not to pray was one of them.

Yet Clanton was disciplined and spent several extra weeks in jail for refusing to participate in an inmate prayer circle that was part of the jail's drug treatment program, she says in a federal lawsuit against the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and the agency that runs the program.

Majestyk · 05-10-2003, 07:07 AM

This should be interesting.

It can also be argued that the group leader, was acting as an extension of the authority of the government. Thereby, bearing the responsibilities applied to the government and not solely as a fellow inmate, as declared in the article.

Furthermore, the treatment angecy's claim that, the Ending Circle's necessity, is as a device to promote unity would, seem to demand that its execution not exclude those of differing religious beliefs.

Jewel · 05-10-2003, 07:55 AM

These comments by city attorney Scott Makar don't sit right with me:

Quote:

"She wasn't forced to pray. The government wasn't injecting any religion into the program," Makar said. "Merely being subjected to someone else's religious speech isn't a violation because the government isn't enforcing the speech on you."

Because she was not allowed to be excused, I think religion was being forced on her. And since it a government sponsered program, this poses a problem.

Quote:

"It was designed to get the group together for the secular purpose, the therapeutic purpose of showing unity" in fighting their addictions, Makar said. "If you had inmates breaking off from the circle ... it creates additional security issues."

Just what secular purpose does prayer serve? If the rest of the program is secular, fine -- but when every session ends with a prayer that everyone must be present for, that statement just seems a bit dishonest to me.

SLD · 05-10-2003, 08:47 AM

I just love it when they violate the law. More attorney fees.

Actually, I would think that this would be a no brainer for the plaintiffs to win. The state's argument doesn't wash. She was disciplined by state officials for refusing to participate in prayer regardless of whether the state officials led it or not and regardless of whether a state official or another person ordered her to stay in the circle during prayer time. The fact remains that they added 20 days to her sentence for her failing to participate.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't ask for a jury trial.

SLD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2003, 07:07 AM	#2
Majestyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Northeast Ohio Posts: 2,846	This should be interesting. It can also be argued that the group leader, was acting as an extension of the authority of the government. Thereby, bearing the responsibilities applied to the government and not solely as a fellow inmate, as declared in the article. Furthermore, the treatment angecy's claim that, the Ending Circle's necessity, is as a device to promote unity would, seem to demand that its execution not exclude those of differing religious beliefs.

05-10-2003, 08:47 AM	#4
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	I just love it when they violate the law. More attorney fees. Actually, I would think that this would be a no brainer for the plaintiffs to win. The state's argument doesn't wash. She was disciplined by state officials for refusing to participate in prayer regardless of whether the state officials led it or not and regardless of whether a state official or another person ordered her to stay in the circle during prayer time. The fact remains that they added 20 days to her sentence for her failing to participate. Nonetheless, I wouldn't ask for a jury trial. SLD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.