In a recent column I confessed to being rather grumpy and ticked off by the actions of those who are refusing to get vaccinated because of “freedom” and, well, stupidity. That particular column got quite a bit of attention on social media, and what was interesting was the response of my kindly readers toward my irritation. I had pledged at the end of the column to be less grumpy in the future, but every response posed to my account implored me to “stay angry” and to keep venting, I guess. Perhaps the steam coming out of my ears is entertaining. 

So, in keeping with the theme of “grumpy Hal,” let’s take a peek at a recent Colorado Politics story that has made me annoyed and wondering if certain people ever read the Constitution. I refer to the reporting on a gentleman who had violated the law and as a result, had served some time in custody. One of the conditions of his parole was that he would live in a particular place for a set period of time, under supervision.

So far, so good…

But here is where it gets a bit tricky and, well, unconstitutional. It seems that the parole officer in charge of this fellow’s case directed that he live in a very specific sort of halfway house in Fort Collins. If he didn’t do as directed, he’d be returned to jail. But here’s the problem: the place the parole officer said he had to live in was the Fort Collins Rescue Mission. That last word might give you a hint where we are headed. 

Yes, the Mission had a Christian program, requiring the man to attend morning Christian prayer services and Bible study. For many people, that might fit in well with their own belief systems. But the parolee in question was an atheist. And the Court official had ordered him to enroll in a specific religious program with a specific religious belief system as a requirement of his parole. Now, I know that many of my kindly readers are, in fact, Christians, and likely think that such a sentence might be good for the guy, who was, after all, a criminal. 

But that misses the point.

The Constitution of the United States, in the famous and vital First Amendment, clearly states that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means that the government cannot compel citizens to worship, nor can the government prevent people from worshiping as they wish. Now, like all rights, this is not an absolute right. For example, you can’t, say, sacrifice Golden Retriever puppies as part of your religious ceremonies, nor claim that robbing a bank is a religious exercise. More fundamentally, the 1^st Amendment says that, within reason, the government cannot force religion on you, nor prevent you from having your own religious beliefs.

And, very importantly, the government is required to be neutral when it comes to religion. The Congress cannot, for example, give a tax break to Baptists that it denies to Quakers. Which means, of course, that the government (in this case in the form of a parole officer) can’t force any religion on the people in his charge.

If you still think forcing Christianity on people is a good thing for the government to do, I’d ask you to consider how you would react if this same government official had decided to force not Christianity, but rather, Islam, Shinto, or Druidism? In an earlier column, I mentioned a teaching technique I came up with while teaching the Constitution at the US Air Force Academy. I’d get my students – always quite Republican and conservative – to agree to a forced prayer in class, as a good idea. But when I started a fake prayer to Satan, their heads shot up, and they felt betrayed. Why? Because I, a government official (and a guy who outranked them by a light year) was forcing a religion they found abhorrent on them in a government setting. And they were right to be outraged.

I admit I have major problems with most major religious organizations. And once again, I’m not talking about beliefs or personal relationships with a creator and such. No, I’m talking about the business of religion found in many of the formal organizations of the various faiths. But I accept that the existence of these religious businesses is both constitutional and legitimate. I disagree sharply, however, with the idea that any particular religion, or no religion at all, should be forced onto the backs of any Americans.

So, if you still believe the actions of the parole office were just fine, I’d ask you if you are still ok with him ordering a parolee to attend a madrasa? A Buddhist convent? An atheist summer camp?

If you are ok with all those choices, at least you are being consistent. But if you find one religious option to be acceptable, but other faiths to be less so, well, we have a problem. The Constitution simply isn’t on your side. 

We don’t get to tell people what they must believe and to whom, if anyone, they must pray.  Because, you know, freedom.