The Supreme Court just handed down a truly shocking attack on Muslims

[Judi Lynn]

"Religious liberty" is a sham.
IAN MILLHISER
FEB 7, 2019, 9:54 PM

The Supreme Court just handed down a brief order holding that a man named Domineque Ray must die without his spiritual adviser being made available to give him comfort. The decision was 5-4 along party lines. The case is Dunn v. Ray.

Dunn is a death row inmate, and there is no doubt that the state of Alabama may execute him. The only issue in this case was whether Ray, who is Muslim, may be killed with his imam at his side. Moreover, as Justice Elena Kagan notes in a dissenting opinion, “a Christian prisoner may have a minister of his own faith accompany him into the execution chamber to say his last rites” under the prison’s policy. So if Ray were a Christian, he would have his spiritual adviser present.

One of the cornerstones of the Supreme Court’s religion jurisprudence is that the government may not discriminate among faiths. As it explained in Larson v.
Valente, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Yet, as Kagan writes, that is exactly what the court did in Dunn.

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority couches its decision as simply a matter of procedure. Ray’s execution was set for Thursday on November 6th. According to the majority, “Ray waited until January 28, 2019 to seek relief,” and thus his request may be denied under the principle that “a court may consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief.”

More:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-supreme-court-just-handed-down-a-truly-shocking-attack-on-muslims-a024cb9fc81c/

[Jarqui]

1. What a disgrace nt

[exboyfil]

2. Couldn't a National Guard cleric

be made available? Or an active military one? Or change the rules so that no chaplain is present in the death chamber for any execution?

[onecaliberal]

3. This is evil. Republicans are evil.

[Igel]

4. So Kagan's saying

that if it's JW on death row, he can have JW "spiritual advisor" there? If Catholic, a RC priest? If Mormon, a LDS minister? If Church of God 7th Day, a Sabbatarian minister? If Messianic Jewish--who are Christian--then a Jesus-believing rabbi?

I see no evidence for that.

I don't think that's what's being said. A pious Catholic is no more going to want a Sabbath-keeping minister there than a LDS member a Roman Catholic priest. Kagan pushes ecumenism further than possible. It might work for some, but not for most, I suspect.

The distinction being emphasized is apparently "Christian" versus "other." The chaplain involved is apparently the prison chaplain. The group of privileged is defined in a fatuously simplistic manner, possibly due to lack of exposure, possibly due to indifference. I doubt special arrangements would be made for the Messianic Jew any more than for an Orthodox Jew, for a Jehovah's Witness any more than for a Macedonian Orthodox Christian. I vaguely suspect that Kagan wouldn't see a difference between the different sects.

That unacknowledged difference, however, shifts the decision from favoring a religion to insisting on the staff being the only option.