Every aspect of a prisoner’s daily life is put under intense scrutiny and regulation. Everything from meals to showers is scheduled; everything is done when and how inmates are told to do it. This is an essential part of the process — it’s a form of punishment, and it’s a step toward rehabilitation.But, in some aspects of a person’s life, the government has neither  the interest nor the right to interfere — namely, in religion.A recent example is gaining national attention — from our own backyard.The Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit on behalf of two prisoners in Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, claiming the prison staff is violating their religious rights.The lawsuit names as a defendant Angola warden Burl Cain, whom the ACLU is accusing of forcing his beliefs on the prison population. Cain is a proponent of a style of prison management he has called “moral rehabilitation,” which employs Christian teachings.The process is highly controversial — supporters point to evidence the program is highly effective, while critics lambast the apparent proselytization.Cain himself has spoken openly about his involvement in his inmates’ spiritual lives. “I didn’t worry about what he must have been experiencing in the hours before his death. I didn’t go to his last meal, and I didn’t share Jesus with him,” Cain said, speaking about a prisoner executed at his facility.As the man died, Cain “felt him go to hell as I held his hand.””I decided that night I would never again put someone to death without telling him about his soul and about Jesus,” the warden intoned.Though Cain’s intentions are noble — and though faith is capable of providing extraordinary means of comfort in even the darkest situations — there is a difference between trying to comfort somebody through shared faith and forcing that faith on them.The lawsuit claims the prison’s televisions are locked on channels airing Baptist church services. Death row inmate Donald Leger is suing to be allowed to watch Catholic services instead of Baptist ones. Meanwhile, inmate Shawn Anderson is suing to be allowed to receive literature from the faith he practices — Nation of Islam.It is important to note neither of these demands will incur cost to the state. They are merely requests to be allowed to practice the faith of their choice.If Cain and his administration were really using faith as a way to comfort prisoners before death, as they claim, then there would be no issues with allowing these inmates to turn to the faith of their choice. Yet by restricting television access to only Baptist programming, the warden seems to be more interested in conversion and proselytization than providing comfort.But whatever the moral issues involved with the case, the law seems certain — the ACLU is right to bring the case to court. According to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” a decree upheld by the Supreme Court decision Cutter v. Wilkins in 2005.The law states the religious rights of prisoners cannot be obstructed. Limiting television access and restricting incoming mail obviously constitute a substantial burden.Whatever your stance on “moral rehabilitation” is, it’s virtually impossible to deny that, in this case, the prison’s policy is in violation of the law.Matthew Albright is a 20-year-old English and political science sophomore from Baton Rouge.–Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]