It looks like the California penal system has forgotten that America is a country that guarantees religious freedom to all of its citizens -- and a part of that religious freedom is the right to be free from religion. Too often many christians, including the parole officer in this story, think religious freedom means the right to force their own religion on others. It doesn't -- that is a violation of the Constitution.
Barry Hazle Jr., a Redding (California) computer technician, had a drug problem. The problem caused him to be arrested for drug possession, and he served a year in a California prison. When the prison officials were getting ready to release Hazle, they told him he must attend a three-month in-patient drug treatment program. Hazle agreed, and asked that he be sent to a "treatment facility that did not contain religious components." As an atheist, he had the right to request this.
But his parole officer decided he didn't have to abide by Hazle's request. PO Mitch Crofoot sent Hazle to a 12-step program (Empire Recovery Center) with a strong religious component. Hazle asked to be transferred to another (non-religious) program. But PO Crofoot said none were available in Northern California (a lie), and told him he must "continue to participate in the Empire program or he would be returned to prison."
Hazle attended the program, but kept insisting he was an atheist and repeatly requested transfer to a non-religious program, including a written appeal to the PO. After three days, the program inform the PO that Hazle had "been disruptive, though in a congenial way." PO Crofoot went to the program, arrested Hazle, and sent him back to prison for refusing to participate in the program (even though he had only refused the religious part of the program).
The amazing part of this story is that Crofoot and his cohorts in the penal system did this in spite of a ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals a year earlier that said a parolee couldn't be compelled to participate in a religious program if he/she objected on religious grounds (which Hazle did repeatedly). Hazle filed suit, but the penal system fought his release saying he had been revoked for his behavior.
U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. didn't buy it. He noted that the PO's own papers showed that Hazle "was not being loud; he was not throwing things around; he wasn't being boisterous and that sort of thing. He was sort of passive agressive." The judge ruled that Hazle's forced participation in the program violated his constitutional rights and ran "afoul of the prohibition against the state's favoring religion in general over non-religion."
Thank goodness for honest and courageous judges. This was a clear case of the state violating the religious freedom rights of one of its citizens. Forcing an atheist to participate in a religious program is just as egregious a violation as forcing a christian to participate in a muslim program (or vice versa). Religious freedom doesn't just guarantee the right to worship as a person pleases, but also guarantees that person will not be forced to worship against his wishes.
Hazle said, "This has been a long and painful process for me. The judge's ruling can't give me back my lost freedom, but it begins to restore my faith in our judicial system." Understand, Hazle did not begrudge his original year in prison or the fact that the state had the right to send him to a three-month drug treatment facility. He was willing to cooperate. He just did not want to be forced to participate in religious activities that violated his beliefs, as was his right.
Hazle's attorney, John Heller, said, "Barry Hazle took a stand that he shouldn't be forced to take part in a religious program that conflicted with his beliefs and he was sent to prison for doing so. Judge Burrell's ruling is an important step in setting things straight, and I look forward to obtaining the relief that Barry deserves for this violation."
Although the judge has decided in Hazle's favor, compensation has yet to be determined. If the state cannot reach a settlement with Hazle before then, a jury trial is scheduled for June 22nd to determine monetary damages. Personally, I think it should be a rather large settlement. Putting someone in prison for his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is a very serious violation of human and constitutional rights.
(Picture is of the Spanish Inquisition, where men and women were not only imprisoned over religious views but also tortured.)
