ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, June 9, 1996 TAG: 9606070049
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 2 EDITION: METRO
EVERY AMERICAN can believe in and practice the religion of his or her choice. It's in the Constitution.
Society, though, can ill-afford much sympathy for an incarcerated lawbreaker who demands special consideration for his religious practices while balking at showing evidence that he is sincere in his beliefs.
Let's hope scant precious time and money will have to be spent to resolve a Muslim prisoner's claim that a new Virginia Corrections Department policy violates his constitutionally protected freedom of religion. The policy requires an inmate professing to be Jewish or Muslim to submit a written statement from a rabbi or imam vouching for the prisoner's sincerity before he can receive meals prepared according to the dietary rules of those religions. A federal judge has barred the state from implementing the policy until a hearing can be held.
The constitutional issue certainly should be resolved. But as a practical matter, the state has a reasonable interest in testing the depth of prisoners' religious fervor when it has nothing to do with trying to control what any individual believes.
The fact is that accommodating religious practices can be expensive and troublesome. Prisoners with religious dietary requirements must be sent to Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, the only state prison that provides the special meals, which, not incidentally, are more expensive than regular prison food.
A spokesman says the Corrections Department "does take religious requirements very seriously," and it should. But the state is hardly being oppressive to expect to see evidence that the prisoners for whom they go to all this trouble are serious, too.
Why would anyone claim to embrace a faith he does not have? There are many possible reasons: to break the monotony of prison food, to hassle authorities, to re-establish some control over the small routines of one's own life. Such motives seem all the more likely among people whose lives are restricted in the first place because they have broken the laws by which society functions peacefully.
The state will have to abide by the court's ruling, whatever it is. But people of faith can live by their religion's teachings whether they are able to honor every rule or not. That would be the best evidence of a lawbreaker's good faith.
LENGTH: Short : 49 linesby CNB