D*****r
发帖数: 6791 | 1 Ben Kalka的上诉书，作为人文主义者他要在监狱里享受信仰待遇。
http://openjurist.org/215/f3d/90/ben-kalka-v-kathleen-hawk-et-al
1
Ben Kalka was a federal prisoner. After his conviction in 1991, he was
incarcerated in seven different Federal Correctional Institutions ("FCIs").
Kalka claims to be a long-time member of the American Humanism Association (
"AHA"). He alleges that at six of the prisons, he attempted to form "
humanist groups within the chapels of the prisons they maintain," Complaint
at 12, but with one exception, the wardens refused to recognize humanism as
a religion and therefore turned him down.1 Acting pro se, Kalka brought this
action for an injunction and damages against officials of the Bureau of
Prisons, claiming that they had violated and were still violating the
religion clauses of the First Amendment. We affirm the district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
2
* Each federal prison has a Religious Services Department headed by a
chaplain responsible for managing the institution's religious activities.
Prison chaplains are also charged with deciding whether to introduce new
religious components to the Department. When a decision on an inmate's
request cannot be reached locally, the request is passed on for review by
the Religious Issues Committee at BOP's Central Office in Washington, D.C.
The Committee then forwards its recommendations to the prison's warden, who
makes the final determination. See generally Bureau of Prisons Program
Statement No. 5360.07, Religious Beliefs and Practices (effective Aug. 22,
1997).
3
Although each prison evidently maintains a "chapel," we do not know exactly
what this entails. A "chapel" might simply be a corner of an ordinary room
set aside at certain times for religious services. (In a letter to the
warden at FCI-Jesup, Georgia, the prison chaplain wrote of a "multi-purpose
auditorium (Chapel area).") BOP regulations require only that space be made
available.
4
The most recent events leading to this lawsuit occurred when Kalka applied
to establish a chapter of the American Humanism Association under the aegis
of the Religious Services Department at FCI-Jesup, Georgia. Kalka supported
his application with information about humanism, including portions of
essays, excerpts from AHA publications, and a copy of a book entitled The
Philosophy of Humanism by Corliss Lamont.
5
After reviewing these items, Chaplain David W. Fox forwarded them to the
warden, Tom L. Wooten, along with a memorandum discussing Kalka's request "
to have counselors and celebrants enter the prison to conduct a 'non-
theistic,' secular and naturalistic approach to philosophy." The chaplain
recommended referring Kalka's application to the Central Office Religious
Review Committee. He listed several matters of concern for the warden's
consideration, among which were the AHA's non-theistic nature; humanism's
lack of ceremonial rituals; the description of humanism as a philosophy; and
Kalka's classification of his faith choice as Jewish. Chaplain Fox also
mentioned that the AHA "is not associated with any type of spirituality or
higher being, as is espoused by our groups currently meeting under the guide
of [the] religious services department."
6
Heeding the chaplain's suggestion, warden Wooten transferred Kalka's request
to the Central Office Religious Review Committee. In his transmittal letter
, the warden wrote that he had "serious concerns" about recognizing humanism
as a religion. In particular, he noted that the materials Kalka presented
clearly document the AHA's "philosophical and educational nature" and that "
[t]he group does not appear to ascribe to any type of Deity, God, or
Spiritual Advisor."
7
The Religious Issues Committee conducted an extensive review of Kalka's
submission. In the information he provided, humanism is described
alternately as a philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a life stance and a
world view. A letter from a humanist association president notes that even
among humanists, the question whether humanism is a religion is a "
contentious one."
8
Corliss Lamont's book, The Philosophy of Humanism, considered "a standard
text and reference" on secular humanism, describes humanism as "a philosophy
that advocates happiness in this life rather than hope for a heaven in an
afterlife." Lamont defines humanism as "a philosophy of joyous service for
the greater good of all humanity in this natural world and advocating the
methods of reason, science, and democracy." Among humanism's central tenets,
Lamont lists a rejection of the supernatural; the belief that the universe
is self-subsisting; that humans are a part of the natural universe; and that
there is no life after death. The Lamont excerpt Kalka submitted labels
humanism "a many faceted philosophy" but makes no reference to any religious
component.
9
Kalka had also submitted a portion of an essay by Gerald A. Larue entitled "
Positive Humanism." In it Larue writes:"it is absolutely essential that we
continue to express the impact of rational and scientific analysis on modern
life and thought." Among other things, the author calls upon humanists to "
take stands against sloppy thinking, against the imposition of ancient
interpretations on modern life and living, [and] against the efforts to
impose religious teachings and interpretations on society." Rational thought
as opposed to religious faith is also stressed in another document Kalka
provided, an AHA statement entitled "What is Humanism?".The statement
affirms humanism's focus on "reason and science" and repeatedly refers to
humanism as a philosophy rather than a religion.
10
Other parts of Kalka's submission describe humanism as a religious movement.
For instance, an excerpt from the AHA's Free Mind magazine discusses the
Humanist Society of Friends ("HSOF"), a group whose motto is "a scientific
religion for a scientific age." The article speaks of the "concept of
Humanism as a non-theistic religion," stating that its view of humanism as a
religion "allows for the opening of many doors and acquiring of many
privileges that Humanism as a philosophy d[oes] not." Another AHA
publication includes an advertisement advising readers of AHA sponsored
humanist counselors who provide humanistic marriage and memorial services
and have the legal status of minister in all fifty states.
11
Kalka also furnished his own statement attesting that humanism "is a study
of ethics, and a religion for some in a personal way." Whether it was a
religion for him, his statement did not say.2
12
From these sources, the Committee concluded that the needs and purposes of
Kalka's proposed AHA group were "more philosophical and educational in
nature." Additionally, one committee member spoke with an outside source
associated with the AHA who confirmed the Committee's determination that the
group was more philosophically oriented. The Committee notified FCI-Jesup's
warden of its conclusion, recommending that he not permit a chapter of the
AHA to meet under the auspices of the Religious Services Department. It
reasoned that the requirements of the group could be met outside of the
Religious Services Department, a program which is reserved for groups that
are "religious" in nature. Humanist literature should also be excluded from
the chapel, the Committee decided, because only literature which is "
religious" and connected to a recognized religious group is "distributed
within the confines of the Religious Services Department."
13
The warden denied Kalka's request to allow AHA meetings as a chapel activity
but informed him that he could establish a humanism group under the aegis
of the prison's Education Department. On Kalka's administrative appeal, the
BOP affirmed. Explaining its decision, a BOP administrator wrote that AHA's
"own newsletters and literature ... consistently refer[ ] to Humanism as a '
philosophy' and not a 'religion.' "He added that in numerous requests for
tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status, the AHA has described itself as "an educational
organization and not a religious organization." See 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3).
The BOP official also mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v.
Watkins, 367 U.S. 468 (1961), commenting that the Court's reference to
Secular Humanism as a religion applied only to a particular group of
humanists known as the Fellowship of Humanity. Kalka was again told that his
group was free to meet as part of the prison's Education Department.3
14
In September 1997, Kalka brought this action against BOP Director Kathleen
Hawk and other named and unnamed BOP officials, alleging that BOP's policy
of excluding humanist groups from prison chapels violates the Free Exercise
and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.4 As a remedy, Kalka sought
compensatory damages, a portion of which would be used to establish
humanist groups in each of the nation's prisons.5 He also sought an
injunction compelling "prison officials so that Chapters of the American
Humanism Association can be formed in all of the prisons" the BOP manages
and an order "enjoining prison officials so that they will allow their
chapels to include for dissemination to inmates literature that is not
conventionally religious, or that might be viewed, in fact, as being anti-
religious."6
15
The defendants moved to dismiss the claims, and the district court, treating
the motion as one for summary judgment, ruled in their favor. Kalka v. Hawk
, No. 97-2259 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 1998). For purposes of resolving the motion,
the court assumed that humanism, as professed and practiced by Kalka, was a
religion. See mem. op. at 4. It concluded that BOP's denying him access to
the prison chapel did not prevent Kalka from reasonably exercising his
humanist beliefs. See id. at 6. Kalka failed to establish that BOP's offer
to allow him to conduct services and distribute literature through the
Education Department was unreasonable. See id. On the Establishment Clause
claim, the court held that BOP's restrictions on Kalka's use of the chapel
were reasonable, particularly because they did not prevent him from freely
exercising his humanist beliefs. See id. at 8. Such reasonable restrictions
are necessary, the court said, to ensure the opportunity for all inmates
freely to exercise their religion. See id. Having concluded that no
constitutional violations occurred, the district court expressed no opinion
on the qualified immunity defense of the BOP officials.
II
16
* Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for damages so long as
their actions were objectively reasonable, as measured in light of the
legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time of their actions.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 (1982); Farmer v. Moritsugu, 163
F.3d 610, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The immunity is not simply from damages but
from having to participate in the proceedings. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472
U.S. 511, 526 (1985). The Supreme Court has therefore instructed the lower
courts that the validity of a qualified immunity defense should be
determined as early as possible, preferably before discovery and trial. See,
e.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 n.2 (1987).
17
Both sides tell us we first must determine whether Kalka has alleged a
constitutional violation, which depends on whether the "humanism" to which
Kalka allegedly subscribes is a "religion" within the meaning of the First
Amendment. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999), they say, precludes us from
simply assuming arguen do that Kalka's humanism is a "religion," and then
determining whether this was clearly established.
18
The critical passage in Wilson is as follows: "A court evaluating a claim of
qualified immunity 'must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged
the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed
to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the
alleged violation.' " Id. at 609 (quoting Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286, 290
(1999)). The Court had suggested this order of decision making in a
footnote in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998),
calling it the "better approach" because, if courts "always" ruled first on
qualified immunity when no clearly established constitutional right existed,
"standards of official conduct would remain uncertain." The Second Circuit
treats County of Sacramento, and the two cases following it--Conn and Wilson |
|
