religion and prison

[abcNKH]

Are we obliged to accomodate inmates' religious beliefs? For instance, is the government obligated to provide special diets, ministers or rabbis, etc., allow specific times for observance of faith, allow special clothing such as turbans?

Is providing this a violation of church and state? Why should we, the citizens who actually pay for prisons and jails, pay for such things?

[flygirl]

I think it must be all or none. If Christian church services, bibles, prayer groups, etc., are offered, then all other religions must be accomodated as well. Since the basic tenet of nearly all religions is some form of the golden rule (do unto others....), I think this is not a bad thing.
Either accomodate all though, or accomodate none.

[Terrell]

I think it must be all or none. If Christian church services, bibles, prayer groups, etc., are offered, then all other religions must be accomodated as well. Since the basic tenet of nearly all religions is some form of the golden rule (do unto others....), I think this is not a bad thing.
Either accomodate all though, or accomodate none.

What Flygirl said.

[kingclick]

Are we obliged to accomodate inmates' religious beliefs? To a certain extent yes.

For instance, is the government obligated to provide special diets,Yes, within reason. ministers or rabbis, etc.,Yes. Give them access but we should not have to pay for them to be on staff. allow specific times for observance of faith,Within reason again. allow special clothing such as turbans?Not if it poses a danger to the inmates.

Is providing this a violation of church and state? No. Providing these things by request is not a violation. However forcing these things would be. Why should we, the citizens who actually pay for prisons and jails, pay for such things?Again within reason I see no problem with it. However the costs should be very minimul. If not, tough luck. The religions involved can find ways to provide these things if they care about their adherents.

[abcNKH]

To a certain extent yes. why? Why should the government be responsible for making sure that someone can practice their religion to ANY extent? IMO, when someone is incarcerated, they are entitled to reasonable shelter, food, and health care - and nothing else. No rights are being violated - they are still free to practice whatever religion they want, but the government should be under no obligation to assist in that endevor.

[JPSartre12]

why? Why should the government be responsible for making sure that someone can practice their religion to ANY extent? IMO, when someone is incarcerated, they are entitled to reasonable shelter, food, and health care - and nothing else. No rights are being violated - they are still free to practice whatever religion they want, but the government should be under no obligation to assist in that endevor.

Agreed. If they want to practice their religion in prison, they should bear the costs.

[kingclick]

why? Why should the government be responsible for making sure that someone can practice their religion to ANY extent? IMO, when someone is incarcerated, they are entitled to reasonable shelter, food, and health care - and nothing else. No rights are being violated - they are still free to practice whatever religion they want, but the government should be under no obligation to assist in that endevor.

Because freedom of religion is guaranteed under the constitution. Because it is not just the ability to follow a hobby or an artistic endeavor but it is a right fundamentally recognized MORE so than food and shelter in our constitution.

And being so, we must find reasonable ways to accomodate someones religion.

[everyday people]

A minimal extent of accommodation, sure. But with prisoners sitting around reading law books in their ample free time (another thing prisoners shouldn't have the luxury of having, they should all be working 10 hours a day in my opinion) they file frivolous lawsuits over this stuff. I saw a story a while back about a man who claimed that because it says in the bible "go forth and multiply" that the state was violating his freedom to practice his religion by refusing him conjugal visits with his wife.

[kingclick]

A minimal extent of accommodation, sure. But with prisoners sitting around reading law books in their ample free time (another thing prisoners shouldn't have the luxury of having, they should all be working 10 hours a day in my opinion) they file frivolous lawsuits over this stuff. I saw a story a while back about a man who claimed that because it says in the bible "go forth and multiply" that the state was violating his freedom to practice his religion by refusing him conjugal visits with his wife.

They should have given him a calculator. I also agree that they should be working 10 hours a day.

[Diva]

Well well well. Mark the calendar boysngurls. It's October 13th, 6:27 pm NZ time, and I'm agreeing with KC. On a religious debate no less. Did we get sucked into a black hole while I wasn't looking?? Because the space-time continuum appears to be well and truly screwed up. ;)

[abcNKH]

it is a right fundamentally recognized MORE so than food and shelter in our constitution.but how has anyone taken away a prisoner's right to practice the religion of their choice? Is is not possible for a prisoner to pray all by himself? Don't ministers and priests volunteer at prisons on a regular basis?

I guess my question has more to do with the government paying to accomodate prisoner's religious demands, ordering and preparing special foods, providing special clothes, paying religious officials to come to prison, paying someone to find said religious officials, etc.

[kingclick]

but how has anyone taken away a prisoner's right to practice the religion of their choice? Is is not possible for a prisoner to pray all by himself? Don't ministers and priests volunteer at prisons on a regular basis?Some religions aren't just about prayer and meeting with ministers. Some have dietary requirements as well as certain rituals that need to be performed at certain times.

I guess my question has more to do with the government paying to accomodate prisoner's religious demands, ordering and preparing special foods, providing special clothes, paying religious officials to come to prison, paying someone to find said religious officials, etc.

1. Depends on the preparation of the foods. I think that if it's just not serving him ham fine. But full on halal (sp?) or kosher? No.
2. Special clothes can be provided by his religious community.
3. No paying of religious officials specific to his religion to come in. Having a "chaplain" is fine. If he wants a minister from his religion they can come in as a volunteer.
4. Paying someone to find that religious official? Sure. That can be the generic chaplains job. ;)

Nothing demanded should be very costly and nothing demanded should compromise the incarceration of the inmate or other inmates. Accomodate as best as possible.

[Book Wizard]

For many years, I knew the man who was chaplain at the infamous Charles Street Jail in Boston. He ministered to everyone, regardless of their religion. He was not a "generic chaplain" by any means. He was a devout Christian who believed in helping anyone and everyone who sought help. He ministered to everyone from Mob Bosses to kids off the street. If someone needed something special for their worship, he tried to get it for him. (The Charles Street Jail had a male population.) He felt it was the right thing to do. He also formed support groups for men who felt suicidal. That was perhaps his most important ministry.

[kingclick]

For many years, I knew the man who was chaplain at the infamous Charles Street Jail in Boston. He ministered to everyone, regardless of their religion. He was not a "generic chaplain" by any means. He was a devout Christian who believed in helping anyone and everyone who sought help. He ministered to everyone from Mob Bosses to kids off the street. If someone needed something special for their worship, he tried to get it for him. (The Charles Street Jail had a male population.) He felt it was the right thing to do. He also formed support groups for men who felt suicidal. That was perhaps his most important ministry.

That is exactly the sort of person I was referring to as a "generic chaplain". One that will minister to the religious needs of all the inmates as best as possible.

I'm curious though, what did you think I meant by "generic chaplain"?

[Book Wizard]

In my mind no clergyperson is "Generic". My friend dealt with everyone as his Christian Duty. There was nothing generic about him. He was not all things to all people at all. He did as he felt God had called him to do.

[kingclick]

In my mind no clergyperson is "Generic". My friend dealt with everyone as his Christian Duty. There was nothing generic about him. He was not all things to all people at all. He did as he felt God had called him to do.

So you saw the word "generic" as some sort of insult? It's not an insult. It's just a generic term.

[ArcticPhoenix]

Are we obliged to accomodate inmates' religious beliefs? For instance, is the government obligated to provide special diets, ministers or rabbis, etc., allow specific times for observance of faith, allow special clothing such as turbans?

Is providing this a violation of church and state? Why should we, the citizens who actually pay for prisons and jails, pay for such things?

1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Because prisoners have as much a right to practice their faith as anyone else. Denying them that right would be much the same as denying black people their right to be... well... black. Religion is a protected class in the USA, and, because of this, our Government must accommodate their religious beliefs and we must pay for it because we are the people who are, ultimately, in charge of this country.

[abcNKH]

Religion is a protected class in the USA, and, because of this, our Government must accommodate their religious beliefs and we must pay for it because we are the people who are, ultimately, in charge of this country.where does the constitution say that the government must pay for anyone's religious choice?

Being a protected class means that we cannot treat someone differently simply because they are of a specific religious belief, it does not mean we must pay for it. There is no discrimination in treating everyone the same, and so no case for violation of freedom of religion. Quite the contrary, IMO, if you allow time for Christians to pray/have service on Sunday mornings, then aren't you obligated to allow whatever time anyone claims is required for them to practice their religion? If you buy a turban for one prisoner, then are you required to buy a cross for another? What about religions which require that women cover their faces? Is that something we should be allowing in prisons?

If you pay for one religious requirement (clothes, food, time), then are you not obligated to pay for all religious requirements for all prisoners? Providing one requirement but denying another is where discrimination comes in. Is it not better to draw the line at paying for requirements? So, if a prisoner finds a way to meet the requirement without the government paying for it, then that would be acceptable - services provided voluntarily by clergy, special foods paid for by religious organizations rather than the government?

And don't you lose some rights when you are in prison? Such as the right to vote? The right to bear arms? I am sure there are others.

I just don't see how it is denying anyone's rights by saying that we will not pay for it.

[ArcticPhoenix]

where does the constitution say that the government must pay for anyone's religious choice? The government cannot stop people from practicing their faith. And if their faith dictates that they cannot eat certain things, then the Government must make accommodations. This isn't unreasonable.

Being a protected class means that we cannot treat someone differently simply because they are of a specific religious belief, it does not mean we must pay for it. It also doesn't mean you can prevent one from practicing their religion or from attaining religious services as mandated by their faith.

And don't you lose some rights when you are in prison? Such as the right to vote? The right to bear arms? I am sure there are others. You do. Does that mean you should lose every one of your rights? If that were the case, prisoners could be treated however the guards wanted to. And that wouldn't be right.

I just don't see how it is denying anyone's rights by saying that we will not pay for it. By not paying for it, you are depriving them of practicing their faith, as their faith dictates. This would be a violation of their rights.


Now, let me ask you something. Do you *really* want to take everything away from prisoners? Really? The only thing that's going to do is make them 1) more determined to escape, 2) more violent to themselves and others, and 3) more violent to the guards that have to watch them and protect you from them.

If you pay for one religious requirement (clothes, food, time), then are you not obligated to pay for all religious requirements for all prisoners? You are, and prisons do this.

So, if a prisoner finds a way to meet the requirement without the government paying for it, then that would be acceptable - services provided voluntarily by clergy, special foods paid for by religious organizations rather than the government? You cannot give someone one part of what their faith dictates and deny them another part. A prime example of this would be diet. If someone is a Muslim, and eating Pork is a sin to them, you cannot refuse to feed them because their religion says they are not allowed to eat Pork. This isn't unreasonable, and I don't see that it costs the Government that much more than they're already paying for everything, when you look at the budget overall.

In regards to a turban for one prisoner and a cross for another, the Christian faith does not REQUIRE its practitioners to carry crosses (quite the opposite, it FORBIDS them from worshipping false idols and images), so this point is moot.

[abcNKH]

The government cannot stop people from practicing their faith. And if their faith dictates that they cannot eat certain things, then the Government must make accommodations. This isn't unreasonableand what if some people believe it IS unreasonable? to cater to prisoners dietary demands for any reason?It also doesn't mean you can prevent one from practicing their religion or from attaining religious services as mandated by their faith.there is a difference between preventing one from attaining religious services and refusing to finance it. Prisoners should be required to finance their own services, or find volunteers, or have their family or attorney find volunteers for them...You do. Does that mean you should lose every one of your rights? If that were the case, prisoners could be treated however the guards wanted to. And that wouldn't be right.and how is it losing any rights to say the government will not finance it? The government doesn't finance it for law-abiding citizens. In fact, one might argue the exact opposite - that the because of separation, the government CANNOT pay for it.By not paying for it, you are depriving them of practicing their faith, as their faith dictates. This would be a violation of their rights.no, you are refusing to pay for it. That is NOT the same as depriving them of it. There is a right to practice religion of your choice - nowhere does it say that the government is obligated to pay for it. Now, let me ask you something. Do you *really* want to take everything away from prisoners? Really? no - but I don't believe that we as taxpayers should be paying for things like bringing in a special minister - paying for that minister's time and travel expenses. And if we pay for ANY religious requirements, then we are obligated to pay for ALL. If we didn't, then it would be discrimination. You are, and prisons do this.and what I am saying is they should not do this. You cannot give someone one part of what their faith dictates and deny them another part. A prime example of this would be diet. If someone is a Muslim, and eating Pork is a sin to them, you cannot refuse to feed them because their religion says they are not allowed to eat Pork. This isn't unreasonable, and I don't see that it costs the Government that much more than they're already paying for everything, when you look at the budget overall. Unless there is a prison somewhere in this country that serves pork and only pork at every single meal, I don't see how this dietary requirement would mean that prisons had to change anything. So there is no cost to meeting this requirement.In regards to a turban for one prisoner and a cross for another, the Christian faith does not REQUIRE its practitioners to carry crosses (quite the opposite, it FORBIDS them from worshipping false idols and images), so this point is moot.I personally think a turban in prison should not be allowed anyway - nothing to do with religion, but with safety and security. Who knows what one is able to hide in it, or how easy it could be used to hang oneself or someone else. But, consider a Christian who has worn a cross on a chain around his/her neck since they were a small child. That person probably considers that cross an outward symbol of his/her Christianity. Isn't disallowing that cross taking their religious freedom away?

What about prisoners who are not even American Citizens - those who were in this country illegally when they committed a crime and landed in prison? Does the US Constitution guarantee rights to those who are not even here legally?

What about prisoners who have, by committing a specific crime, shown that they really are NOT devout? Such as how can a murderer claim to be a devout Christian? If their crime shows that they are not devout, are we still under any obligation to provide anything?

[ArcticPhoenix]

and what if some people believe it IS unreasonable? to cater to prisoners dietary demands for any reason? Then it's a good thing these people aren't in charge of our Government. God knows we already have enough crackpots in there the way things are now.

there is a difference between preventing one from attaining religious services and refusing to finance it. Prisoners should be required to finance their own services, or find volunteers, or have their family or attorney find volunteers for them... I disagree. Going by that reason, the prisoners should have to find their own food. This doesn't mean denying them food, it means prisoners should be required to finance their own food services, or find volunteers, to bring food into them, or have their family or attorney bring them food.

and how is it losing any rights to say the government will not finance it? The government doesn't finance it for law-abiding citizens. In fact, one might argue the exact opposite - that the because of separation, the government CANNOT pay for it. the Government doesn't hold law-abiding citizens against their will... usually...

no, you are refusing to pay for it. That is NOT the same as depriving them of it. There is a right to practice religion of your choice - nowhere does it say that the government is obligated to pay for it. When they have no way of accessing it unless you provide it, yes, it *is* denying them access to it.

and what I am saying is they should not do this. That's nice. Run for congress. See how many people agree with you there.

no - but I don't believe that we as taxpayers should be paying for things like bringing in a special minister - paying for that minister's time and travel expenses. And if we pay for ANY religious requirements, then we are obligated to pay for ALL. If we didn't, then it would be discrimination. It was a yes or no question, not a "but" question. You answered no.

I personally think a turban in prison should not be allowed anyway - nothing to do with religion, but with safety and security. Who knows what one is able to hide in it, or how easy it could be used to hang oneself or someone else. But, consider a Christian who has worn a cross on a chain around his/her neck since they were a small child. That person probably considers that cross an outward symbol of his/her Christianity. Isn't disallowing that cross taking their religious freedom away? Oh for Christ's sakes. A turban is required religious apparel. A cross isn't. Apples to oranges. Apples to oranges.

Going by this logic, prisoners shouldn't be allowed to have hands, because they might hit someone else! Oh noes!!!!111!1!! This has nothing to do with anatomy, but more with safety and security. Give me a break.

Look, I know I'm being a pisser about this, and I'm sorry for coming across that way. But the bottom line is that prisons *do* pay for this sort of thing, and if they *don't* provide it for their prisoners, then the Government is depriving them of their right to practice, which *is* a violation of the first amendment.

What about prisoners who have, by committing a specific crime, shown that they really are NOT devout? Such as how can a murderer claim to be a devout Christian? If their crime shows that they are not devout, are we still under any obligation to provide anything? Anecdotal evidence. Devoutness cannot be quantified objectively and is, therefore, moot. A Christian can be a murderer and prove that they can be with a simple verse. All have fallen short of the glory of God. A person can be a Muslim even though they've just blown up 5 Jews in a bus the day before.

I realize that it's a good idea to cut costs, but not everyone can be Sheriff Joe, and prisons operate on a different level than jails. Prisons and jails are two entirely different things, and must, therefore, be run differently. And depriving prisoners their ability to practice their faith will only cause riots. Looking at this, including the cost of how much it takes to suppress a riot, I'd say it's cheaper to provide them their services and placate them, especially over something as insignificant as providing them with a simple chaplain. This isn't something that costs our Government billions of dollars.

[JPSartre12]

So you saw the word "generic" as some sort of insult? It's not an insult. It's just a generic term.

I assumed that by generic, you meant non-denominational in his ministering.

[abcNKH]

if they *don't* provide it for their prisoners, then the Government is depriving them of their right to practice, which *is* a violation of the first amendment.denying someone the right to practice and refusing to finance that right to practice are NOT the same thing. I have read the first amendment over and over, and nowhere does it say that the government is obligated to finance anyone's religious choice.

These are not people who the government is just rounding up for a day at that spa. They have committed crimes all on their own, and have landed in prison all on their own. They have put themselves in the position of not being able to practice.

The government should be required to provide the basics only - food, shelter, basic health care. That is all anyone needs to survive.

This has nothing to do with Sheriff Joe. There was a discussion on the local talk radio a month or so ago, about a prisoner (long term prisoner in prison, not jail) who sued to force a prison to provide some religious official twice a week for him. He was the only prisoner of whatever obscure faith he followed. The only official they could find was over 100 miles away, and the prison ended up paying the expenses for this guy to go to the prison twice a week - time, travel, meals, for the official and his assistant or something. I don't remember the details of the discussion, and there were people on both sides of the issue. Many callers tried to offer up some sort of compromise, which brought up the fact that if you provide something for one religion, then you must provide it for all religions. So the only solutions ended up being either don't pay for anything, or pay for everything.

I agree, everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice. But I, as a tax-payer, should not have to pay for that simply because someone committed a crime. I will readily admit that I am not a big believer in 'prisoner's rights'. But religion is a CHOICE, not a NECESSITY to survive. I just don't believe that taxpayers should have to pay for anything above and beyond what is necessary for prisoners to survive, especially when we have thousands and thousands of law-abiding citizens who are struggling to even meet those basic needs of food, shelter, and health-care.

[ArcticPhoenix]

denying someone the right to practice and refusing to finance that right to practice are NOT the same thing. I have read the first amendment over and over, and nowhere does it say that the government is obligated to finance anyone's religious choice. All of the Government's policies are not ruled solely by the first amendment. You seem to have skipped over quite a bit of other things that have happened in our legal system the past two hundred and some odd years.

These are not people who the government is just rounding up for a day at that spa. They have committed crimes all on their own, and have landed in prison all on their own. They have put themselves in the position of not being able to practice. No they haven't. The Government cannot deny them their right to practice, and if they are not given adequate access to what is required to practice their faith, then the Government IS denying them that right.

This has nothing to do with Sheriff Joe. There was a discussion on the local talk radio a month or so ago, about a prisoner (long term prisoner in prison, not jail) who sued to force a prison to provide some religious official twice a week for him. He was the only prisoner of whatever obscure faith he followed. He found a loophole. Those will exist in the law. And to be fair, this is the only example you've given of where the Government has gone to extrenuous lengths to provide religious services for a prisoner. They should have transferred him to a prison that was closer, that would've cost less money.

But religion is a CHOICE, not a NECESSITY to survive. I disagree with you. A conviction of what you feel is right in the world isn't a choice by any stretch of the imagination. If you ask someone why they are Jewish, they won't say "Because I choose to." If you ask someone why they practice the Christian faith, they won't claim that it's their choice (unless they're Armenian perhaps).

I just don't believe that taxpayers should have to pay for anything above and beyond what is necessary for prisoners to survive, especially when we have thousands and thousands of law-abiding citizens who are struggling to even meet those basic needs of food, shelter, and health-care. Stop whining.

The government should be required to provide the basics only - food, shelter, basic health care. That is all anyone needs to survive. I disagree that the only basics are food, shelter, and basic health care.

However, I would like to point something out. And I'm not trying to be snide or anything, but... you don't seem to know what it's like to be part of any religion. You haven't laid claim to any particular religion that I've seen on this board, so I must assume that you have no religion. If you did, then you could understand the necessity that religion and faith plays in the life of the believer.

I'm not religious either, by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a doubter, and I question many things, but I do understand what it means to be part of a religion. And to deny someone access to worshipping their faith is ridiculously discriminatory at best.