It is a shame it took the ruling of a federal judge to remind the Saint Marys Correction Center it cannot require participation in religiously affiliated programs as a condition of parole for inmates. One would think those charged with enforcing sentences for those convicted of breaking the law know Americans' basic rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin, based in Charleston, ruled inmate Andrew Miller "easily meets his threshold burden of showing an impingement on his rights."
The state's "unmitigated actions force Mr. Miller to choose between two distinct but equally irreparable injuries," the judge wrote. He can either "submit to government coercion and engage in religious exercise at odds with his own beliefs," or "remain incarcerated until at least April 2025."
Further, Goodwin wrote "I have been provided with no evidence that West Virginia's program is any less religious or less coercive than the programs invalidated in other jurisdictions."
Goodwin's ruling is to be applauded, and in the meantime, Miller's case must be revisited.
"Although Mr. Miller has no entitlement to parole, the record strongly suggests that he would already have been released, but for maintaining his objections to an unconstitutional policy," Goodwin said.
What on earth were state correctional officials thinking on this one? The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment could not be clearer on the matter. One would think public officials who consider themselves patriots and perhaps Christians would be among the first to understand that.