Gah*

Among all of the hell-in-a-hand-basketness of recent years and months, you may have missed our many examples of eroding freedom of (and from) religion. Most recently, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that a Muslim had no right to have an imam present at his execution, then just a few days ago turned that on its head to rule with just two dissenting votes that a Buddhist did have a right to an appropriate spiritual adviser at execution.

Wow. What is that about, other than overt prejudice against Muslims? How can the three who didn't keep their their votes consistent reconcile that with the First Amendment?

Well, see, supposedly there was a procedural reason, which so often turns out to be hidden away in the details of legal cases. The Muslim prisoner hadn't filed in a timely manner and the Buddhist had, you see, and that was the reason, they said. It wasn't because of prejudice. Oh, no. Not prejudice.

I was ready to accept that, though on one level I thought it was pathetic bullshit. But then (big surprise) it turns out it isn't true.

While the Buddhist, Patrick Murphy, did ask for a stay one month before his execution while the Muslim, Domineque Ray, asked two weeks before his, Ray couldn't have asked much sooner because he had just learned Alabama had a secret policy allowing only Christian advisers!

After Ray discovered this secret rule, he filed his federal lawsuit in five days, seeking a stay of execution until he could secure his imam’s presence. As Cassy Stubbs, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Capital Punishment Project, told Slate, “there is no evidence that Ray sat on the claim or was dilatory in any way.”

Murphy, by contrast...had notice of Texas’ death chamber regulations for years. Since 2012, the state’s official policy has excluded all but prison employees from the chamber during executions. And there are no Buddhist spiritual advisers who work for the prison. This rule, unlike Alabama’s, is public. Moreover, when the state confirmed that it would not allow a Buddhist spiritual adviser to attend his execution, Murphy waited more than two weeks to file a lawsuit. In all pertinent details, Murphy’s claim was less timely than Ray’s—as both the federal district and appeals court explained in denying his suit.  [emphasis added]

So, when it comes to looking at the filing intervals that really matter, Murphy took two weeks to file and Ray took just five days. And the man with the shorter interval is the one who has been put to death. Who just "happens" to be black and Muslim.

I think these men shouldn't have been on death row in the first place (of course), but if they are/were, it's completely obvious that the First Amendment requires they should both have the spiritual adviser of their choice present when their lives are taken if Christians are allowed that, and a few weeks or days in filing time is an absurdity, not a reason to grab hold of. Why is that so hard to understand?
__

* "Gah" is a sound of disgust, in case that is not obvious.