In the recent case of Ben-Levi v. Brown, a Jewish inmate sued a prison for denying him the right to hold a weekly Torah-study session with other Jewish prisoners. A federal court ruled in favor of the prison on grounds that fly in the face of a long-accepted principle: namely, in the Supreme Court’s formulation, that “the federal courts have no business addressing” the question of whether a person has properly understood his own religion’s doctrines. Mitchell Rocklin and Howard Slugh write:
The court, applying the test now advocated by the Obama administration [in a case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell, upcoming at the Supreme Court], made its own determination regarding the religious harm that Ben-Levi would suffer if denied the ability to study with other Jewish inmates. The court reached the absurd conclusion that it was actually protecting Ben-Levi’s religiosity by denying his request. According to the court, Ben-Levi had not suffered any harm because, in its view, Judaism prohibited individuals from studying together in the absence of ten men or a rabbi.
In other words, the court concluded that Ben-Levi did not deserve a religious exemption because he misunderstood his own religion. In doing so, the court acted as a religious tribunal rather than a secular court—and an incompetent one at that. No major denomination of Judaism prohibits the study in question. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Justice Alito wrote a dissent stating that he would have taken the case and reversed the decision. He criticized the lower courts for impermissibly holding that “a plaintiff’s own interpretation of his religion must yield to the government’s interpretation.”
This case offers a clear example of the danger inherent in courts’ second-guessing plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The district court’s interpretation of Judaism has no basis in Jewish doctrine. . . . [But the] court’s specific misunderstanding—as baffling as it may be—is mostly beside the point. The court’s confusion highlights why judges should not be in the business of deciding theological questions. That might be the role of Saudi Arabian courts, but it is not the role of the American judiciary.
Read more on National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432517/supreme-courts-little-sisters-case-judges-should-defer-nuns-theology