It sounds bizarre but could somebody create a new religion with opulent dogma (Filet mignon for dinner everynight, sexual relations with the opposite sex daily, only hand squeezed orange juice at breakfast…) and then if you are ever arrested, you simply claim that you require these things to follow your religion. Would the state be required to supply these things. THIS IS INSANE. Let this guy eat the same food every other INMATE eats while he rethinks the day he beat his 5-week-old son to DEATH!!!
Inmate wins case vs. state over diet (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/06/19/inmate_wins_case_vs_state_over_diet/)
Fourteen years ago, Henry K. Boateng was sentenced to life in prison without parole after a Worcester jury convicted him of beating his 5-week-old son to death and viciously attacking the baby’s mother.
Now, Boateng, who has changed his name to Daniel Yeboah-Sefah and identifies himself as a Buddhist, has won a significant legal victory: A federal judge found that the state prison system violated his civil rights by denying him a vegan diet
Does every story breakdown along party lines. Please explain.
… breakdown party/political lines. So I was curious if this story would end up doing the same. I am a conservative and I think the court mad a mistake by siding with the inmate.
we are a country based on laws, judges should rule based upon the law. In this case, the judge was first appointed by Ronald Reagan. So my hope is that he made his decision based upon the laws of our country. How about you?
We are a country of laws and I am NOT a fan a judicial activism. I hope he made his decision on the law as well. Interpretation of these laws is where it gets sticky. In my opening remarks, I laid out a scenario where somebody could argue that they belong to a religion which has unique rules (only drinking fresh squeezed orange due to a “fear” of machines…). Will our judicial system be required to conform to whatever rules and traditions that these religions have? How will we handle a person whose beliefs are at odds with our facilities (cannot be within x feet of a non-believer, must be in direct sunlight x hours a day…). A friend of mine who is a prison guard told me if I ever get arrested (no comments please), I should immediately declare my religion as Jewish since at his prison, Jewish inmates gets superb food brought in from outside the prison. The lowly Christians must eat the slop prepared in-house.
Your argument would be somewhat more compelling without the anti-semitic anecdote, but on reflection, I’m guessing that’s your entire point.
<
p>Rather than masking it behind some bizarrely convoluted “fear of machines” argument, why don’t you just come out and ask why people that keep Kosher (and Halal) get special meals in prison.
<
p>I don’t see where party lines come in at all.
It’s not just the Christians who don’t get Kosher meals, it’s all non-Kosher Jews in prisons.
<
p>Perhaps the problem is that prison food is so terrible. If Kosher meals weren’t better quality then the regular food, meaning if the non-sectarian prison food was prepared of the same quality as the Kosher meals, no one would be lying about their religion to game the system, right? But why try to feed prisoners a healthy diet? That’d only cost more money and it cut into the food vendor’s profit.
He’s not talking about people gaming the system, he’s claiming Jews get preferential treatment over Christians.
<
p>Note that his “evidence” is entirely anecdotal.
<
p>Googling around, there are a number of links on the topic:
<
p>This very long, very detailed [Harvard Law School article ] http://leda.law.harvard.edu/le… on prison food law concludes that it’s ultimately up to the wardens to run their prisons as they see fit.
<
p>More telling is this article about a Jewish inmate Arkansas getting Kosher meals by court order and this article about Jewish Prison Chaplains overseeing in-house Kosher meals in California meals. Deluxe Kosher meals just ain’t happening, at least as a normal occurrence.
<
p>JohnD’s argument plays on how people THINK prisons work (kind of like an airplane with more orange jumpsuits), but it doesn’t bear up under the slightest scrutiny. I smell troll.
<
p>
The parties are Conservatives and those that disagree with JohnD. Everyone in the latter group thinks alike and favors nutty jurisprudence.
As a member of the formidable and mostly monolithic Conservative party, I embrace the opportunity to engage with whimsical fellows like yourself. Although I do wonder why so many people on this web site seem to be so ANGRY!! Everyone seems to have a little edge on them. Maybe they should switch to decaf. Even when I try to be funny, they think I’m snide. Are you being snide KBusch? Are you angry? Should I not blog on this site?
If you’re going to claim something breaks down along party lines, you have to prove it somehow. Your comments here provide further evidence for my hypothesis in the Liberal Lump Theory comment: you appear to be imagining a vast cabal of identically thinking people. My comment here overstated it, of course, but you do seem overly quick to detect liberalism.
<
p>We, on the left of the spectrum, frequently find ourselves asked to defend the entire membership of the left side of the spectrum — that includes every loon on the left. Hence, the reference to obscure Professor Churchill whom conservatives radio hosts seemed to think was somehow representative of liberals.
<
p>Your entire world view is unlikely to mesh with most folks here. You can carefully choose issues to discuss. You can respect that even liberals have differences of opinion. You can approach us with some curiosity as to how we, otherwise intelligent seeming folk, view things so differently from you.
<
p>Or you can fill parenthetical comment after parenthetical comment with your exasperation with liberals. You can attribute every media error or gap in jurisprudence as caused by liberals.
<
p>I guarantee you that that approach will give you the impression that we’re all angry and snide.
<
p>Your choice.
Because it is a tempting tool for gotcha purposes. I have been guilty of this myself.
<
p>1. Find something outrageous said by someone on the extreme other side of the aisle. Pat Robertson, say.
<
p>2. Assume the other side of the aisle is a monolith, and issue denunciations forthwith.
<
p>3. Upon reply, of “hey wait a minute, that’s guy’s a fringe player” state that the other side of the aisle must be monolithic because they did not rise en masse to issue denunciations of the original comment.
<
p>Repeat.
I have noticed that many seemingly unrelated, non-political issues seem to break down along party lines, including things like the Roger Clemens issue. So my question was more about WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN instead of DO YOU AGREE THIS IS HAPPENING in this case. The example I used from the News today was about this inmate and the food he being fed, but it could be anything such as drilling in Alaska or school vouchers… If people replied one way or another, would then comment on how they replied and make a quick judgement.
<
p>You may be surprised to know that I think the conservative group is far more a LUMP as you called it then you Liberals. As a matter of fact, I believe the ONLY explanation of the Republicans run at the White House has been the “splintering” of the party the Democrats experience because of this diversity. The Republicans on the other hand are very closely aligned and are monolithic for lack of a better word.
<
p>My comments, which I try to keep lose and fun, are strongly formulated and sincere. If I see hypocrisy in an issue, I believe you must point it out. There was a blog on here showing John McCain flip-flops and today I wrote about BO’s flip-flops on NAFTA, Iran, Public Campaign Financing and I think these are completely valid to mention countering the comments about JM. The expression “people in glass houses…” resonates with me and I will seize every instance I can to make the point. My oft printed words on BO’s “typical white person…” remark are sincere. I make a big deal about this because can you just imagine KM saying “She was a typical black person…”? He would be forced to withdraw his candidacy. I thought we had a color blind society. So you may think I am jabbing with parenthetical comments, I am trying to make a point that people, on both sides, need to be consistent. I love telling a story and then asking for an opinion, THEN telling the people if it a Republican or Democrat, black or white, man or woman… It is amazing how people will render an opinion and then try to back out of it when they realize they have criticized one of their own.
because they’re dumb.
As to the original story, conservatives have an overdeveloped sense of the depreivation and punishments that convicts should endure, and liberals have an overdeveloped sense of the prisoners’ worth as special people who require the state to expend monies for their comfort and self-improvement. Not surprising that that becomes partisan.
<
p>I am baffled by the Clemens thing. My only theory is that, to Congressional Republicans, a guy who speaks with a Texan accent is automatically more believeable, in the same way that, for some people, a woman who speaks with a British accent is automatically more attractive.
(CentralMassDad, please look the other way now.)
<
p>I think that Lakoff’s account in Moral Politics of the difference between liberals and conservatives is pretty good at fitting most of the data. It also indicates how pervasive and far reaching the differences are. By his account, one would expect conservatives to be more self-consciously ideological and to strive for more unity; one would expect liberals to be a little bit all over the map with many making sure they listened to absolutely everyone, brainy or loony.
<
p>Certainly, there are tribal effects: we defend our own because they’re from our tribe. If Lakoff’s account is correct, it goes further. The distinction between liberals and conservatives revolves around perceptions of morality. It’s for that reason that conservatives are more likely to imagine that other conservatives are intrinsically good — and conversely, for liberals to imagine that of other liberals. Viewed from across the aisle, liberals often look self-indulgent to conservatives. That’s part of how we often appear immoral to your team. Consequently, I suspect that Spitzer’s and Marzilli’s problems came as much less of a surprise from a conservative vantage point than they would from mine.
<
p>(CentralMassDad, I told you to look the other way.)
but we have to learn how to draw the line. I think your “tribal” metaphore is very good. But I think while we can be loyal, we must also know when someone has commited an egregious offense they must be dropped. Spitzer is great example in that you couldn’t find ANYONE to stand up for the guy, even his closest friends and comrades. He was guilty and he was admonished appropriately. I guess from my standpoint I see similar events happening with people like Congressman Jefferson and wonder why similar condemnations do not occur instead of circling the wagons.
<
p>I WANT to believe that I see right and wrong, both in your party and in my own. I may be just as guilty in turning a blind eye when the offense has been commited by someone in my tribe. If so, I am just as wrong as the people I riducule. BUT, I am sure this crowd will keep me honest. Thanks!!!
There were a variety of reactions to Spitzer. To those of us on the left, surprise was a big part of that reaction. I don’t know, but I doubt surprise was big part of the reaction among conservatives.
<
p>The “tribal” response helps hold marriages together. Partners in a successful marriage often have an inflated sense of one another’s goodness that exceeds what is “fair”. Fair is a great value. I strive for it, but it is not the only value and, among us apes, it occasionally needs to take second position.
Should jewish inmates not be allowed yarmulkes because they aren’t part of standard prison dress?
<
p>Should muslim or jewish inmates be forced to eat pork against their religious beliefs?
<
p>Is there something Christians don’t do for religious reasons that they should be forced to do if they’re in prison?
<
p>I hardly think a vegan diet is that big a deal. And buddhism isn’t some religion that was created 5 years ago and is unknown beyond this one case. Your comparative case doesn’t quite compare.
<
p>Does forcing in inmate to regularly violate their religious beliefs count as cruel and unusual punishment? Any case law on this?
<
p>There is obviously a line between vegan and filets. I don’t know where it is and who decides it, though.
and I don’t know the limits. Beyond Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam there are some far out religions. I don’t mean to be insulting or pejorative by saying “far out” but simply mean they may have customs which we don’t know or are comfortable with. Maybe the test case will be one of these religions with “unusual” dogmas is tested in court. On a completely honest level, I would recomend adopting whatever religion lends the most favorable conditions to someone I cared about going to prison. WHat would our forefathers say about this decision?
<
p>An all-powerful, all-knowing sky wizard who controls the universe yet plays hide-and-seek has made a specific, exclusive contract with a small desert tribe on a singular planet. Said wizard, with no limits on power or knowledge, only concluded said contract when one individual in this universe proved ready to kill his son on the say-so of the wizard.
<
p>The terms of the contract may or may not have changed. Some people say they’ve never changed. Others say they changed when a woman got pregnant without sex, gave birth to a man who preached, was killed, and popped back to life — and almost immediately floated off the Earth’s surface. Still others say they changed when an illiterate who married into money started getting dictation from a spirit (which he memorized flawlessly), and also started killing neighbors who didn’t believe him.
<
p>This wizard has no limits on its existence, but is shaped like a human being, has a prurient interest in the reproductive habits of one species on one planet in this universe, and advocates (it would seem) killing over the most trivial of matters.
<
p>Oh yeah, those “other religions*” are sure out there.
<
p>*You can make a great case the Buddhism isn’t really a religion.
…I gave you a 4 rating for your dismissive attitude toward faith. Religion is not completely rational to be sure, but some religions are sincerely adhered to by millions of people and are steeped in ancient tradition, while frankly others, such as some claimed by prisoners, have the feel of being made-up and not sincere.
<
p>As for me, I focus my own Christian faith primarily on trying to follow the teachings and example of Jesus Christ rather than getting wrapped up in those aspects that are difficult to square with enlightened rationalism.
…it’s religion that gets to me. Rather, it’s the very temporal codification, all too often exploitation of faith. As Gandhi said, “I like you Christ, I do not like your Christians”. This was a man empowered by his faith every bit as much as was Dr. King. Jesus was groovy…it went downhill after he is to have left the Earth. Directly put, Paul “made up” Christianity from Judaism, and Muhammad “made up” Islam from local traditions in Arabia. But it happened centuries ago so those religions get a pass. What counts as an “out there” religion? Christian Science? How about Hinduism, which wasn’t mentioned but predates all the religions mentioned thus far?
<
p>All I’m trying to say is that, once you get into discussing religions have been “made up” and are thus “out there”, you’re going down a path that doesn’t lead anywhere good.
…about St. Paul. I agree that alot of what has passed for Christianity in the past 2000 years is his doing rather than Jesus’ I respect that he put his thoughts on the record, but whenever someone quotes one of his epistles, especially to condemn homosexuals or put women in “their place” I say, “Paul is entitled to his opinions, but so am I!”
<
p>I don’t know as much about Islam, but I am in the process of reading the Koran and there does seem to be more Jewish than local influence as far as I can tell. I do tend to be biased towards the “Great Religions” of comparative study: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sihkism, Jainism, and Shintoism and yes, an ancient pedigree is valuable I think precisely because it is a way of connecting with and honoring the past. Of course, within these religions also exist certain sects that are rather embarrassing.
His point, from what I gather, is that from the outside looking in, all religions are “far out”.
<
p>I can understand the point of view that ancient religions seem more earnest then the more recently “developed” Mormonism and Scientology. But looking at all religions from an objective distance, they’re all equally wacky. Faith can be defined as belief in something despite insufficient evidence – and I think that is the great equalizer. Since the existence of Yahweh and resurrection of Jesus is as statistically improbable and as impossible to prove as the existence and agency of the Great Gazoo, it strikes me as funny when some assign a hierarchy of plausibility and legitimacy to supernatural beliefs.
<
p>You say that some religions seem more legit because they are ancient sincerely adhered to by millions, yet others “such as some claimed by prisoners, have the feel of being made-up and not sincere.” Well, what difference does it make if a prisoner un-sincerely adheres to a made-up religion or un-sincerely adheres to one of the legit religions? Or what if the prisoner sincerely adheres to a made-up religion or sincerely adheres to one of the legit religions?
<
p>To the point of the post: freedom of Religion means freedom of religion. If keeping that constitutional right means murders can game the system to eat better in prison, it’s extremely small potatoes. I get that some are outraged that taxpayer dollars are going to give luxuries to certain people that may not be sincere in their faith. But I don’t want the government in the business of authenticating prisoners religions because that can easily turn into coercing prisoners into practicing only state-sanctioned religions and deter prisoners from practicing legit minority faiths.
<
p>My constitutional rights, and the rights of all Americans, are worth the extra money to allow prisoners to comply with a religious diet. If a Jewish person went to prison, it would be abhorrent to make that prisoner eat pork, regardless of the crime. i like that we have prisons, I also like that there is some hope that prisoners have protections under the law and can be treated in a humane and dignified fashion (to a point – I know prison isn’t pretty). You never know if a family member will end up incarcerated, and you’d want that person’s Constitutional rights protected, you’d want that person to be as secure and well treated as possible and to leave that prison as healthy as possible. I don’t plan on ever going to prison, but if some misfortune befalls me and I end up there, I’d want my rights protected. This ruling doesn’t just protect current prisoners, it protects anyone who may end up in jail in the future, including those who may be falsely accused or falsely convicted.
about things like this. If the warden wants to let inmates wear different clothes or eat different food or if he or she decides to only serve pork, it should be up the warden. The warden should ignore the court here and tell them to do their jobs.
…I do think this religion issue behind bars gets out of hand. As far as I’m concerned enjoying certain rights such as freedom of religion is part of the social contract between the government and the governed. If one breaks the social contract by commiting a crime, then he should lose the presumption of enjoying his rights. In other words, I believe that the once a guilty verdict is delivered, only 8th amendement rights are still valid inside prison walls.
<
p>Outside of prison I agree with Jefferson: “I care not whether my neighbor worships no god or twenty gods – it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
I, and many others, view freedom of religion as a human right.
<
p>Of course prison should mean a loss of rights, but I don’t think prison should be used to force people to follow or not follow approved religions. If we fail to protect freedom of religion in prisons, we open the door for the possibility that Islamic people can be forced to stop practicing their religion based on the bigoted whim of the warden or the government. Along with the punishment of confinement, certain people would be subject to the indignity of being stripped of their religious identity. If that’s possible, perhaps people might be more motivated to convict someone if they know that the defendant was of a religion jurists did not like and sending him to jail would mean one less practitioner of the evil religion. You can’t ban all religions in prison, it would be impractical to enforce and American religious institutions would not stand for it.
<
p>Religious rights of prisoners need to be protected so that prisons don’t become state-sanctioned forced conversion and de-conversion factories.
It’s not about rituals or diets or clothes. Prisoners should be allowed to have their choice of books, and be allowed to read and pray however they want, but that’s as far as it needs to go.
Maybe that is how your religion works, but that is not how everyone’s religion works and if you want them to respect yours then perhaps you should respect theirs.
and they don’t need mine
You can only speak for your religion. I know Catholics consider Mass an integral part of practicing their religion.
<
p>Also, now that I think of it, for Christians in general I know the sacraments, which are rituals, are an integral part of practicing Christianity. Baptism, communion – could you imagine the outrage of churches and Christians across America if prisoners were ever barred from taking communion?
if the warden wants to have a church and let a prison chaplain give communion, that is the warden’s prerogative. He certainly doesn’t have to. Not even a priest has to give communion to people in his church. The big controversy in Massachusetts in the 1730’s was whether to give communion to people who merely wanted it, rather than those the Reverend decided were worthy of it.
…that religion is more then just “in the mind” for many.
Just let’s be reasonable about an environment where not everything is practical, like certain religious “requirements”. I certainly would be outraged if a prison authority tried to force either conversion to a particular faith or renunciation of a particular faith. I’m fine with chaplains of various faiths having access to prisoners.
<
p>We are talking past each other because those who want the right protected bring up solid religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. What’s on my mind are those who find “religion” inside prison walls that’s nothing like anything on the outside, then use it as a basis to sue the government for special privileges. I even know someone who went to prison and later wrote to me to say he had while in prison become a “priest” in a religion that I’m not convinced even exists outside. (He was raised Episcopalian.) I generally don’t evangelize, but this is the only time I have ever overtly asked someone to come back to Christianity, whereas if he had said he had converted to Judaism, Islam, or even Buddhism I probably would have let it go. I just think that when the requests get ridiculous somebody with the authority and common sense to do so should tell the prisoner he’s full of it.