Associated Press
Posted on December 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Updated yesterday at 5:06 PM
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — A Festivus for the rest of us?
A convicted drug dealer in California thinks so. He cited his adherence to the holiday celebrated on a famous episode of "Seinfeld" to get better meals at the Orange County jail.
The Orange County Register reported Monday that Malcolm Alarmo King disliked the salami meals served at the jail, so he used his devotion to Festivus as a reason to get kosher meals reserved for inmates with religious needs.
Keeping kosher is not one of the tenets of Festivus, which was depicted on "Seinfeld" as celebrated with the airing of grievances and the display of an aluminum pole.
Sheriff's spokesman Ryan Burris says King got salami-free meals for two months before the county got the order thrown out in court.
Heck, I'd claim to follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it could get me better meals. I'm really curious on what argument he was denied his meals in the end if jews can still get kosher meals. How can you show your invisible magic man can be as authentic as the other guy's invisible magic man?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Heck, I'd claim to follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster if it could get me better meals. I'm really curious on what argument he was denied his meals in the end if jews can still get kosher meals. How can you show your invisible magic man can be as authentic as the other guy's invisible magic man?
the argument being that the religion he claimed to be following (or rather, the holiday I guess) doesn't actually involve Kosher. I'm sure the prison would have tried to deny him the kosher food even if it did, and then perhaps we'd have more of a debate. But here he wasn't even arguing that it did so...
Basically its not a matter of authenticity of your religion, its a matter of authenticity of your request for Kosher.
the argument being that the religion he claimed to be following (or rather, the holiday I guess) doesn't actually involve Kosher. I'm sure the prison would have tried to deny him the kosher food even if it did, and then perhaps we'd have more of a debate. But here he wasn't even arguing that it did so...
Basically its not a matter of authenticity of your religion, its a matter of authenticity of your request for Kosher.
And pray tell what makes your request for Kosher "authentic"? What other reason must you provide that you require Kosher food?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
And pray tell what makes your request for Kosher "authentic"? What other reason must you provide that you require Kosher food?
Well for one actually saying that you require kosher food! He said "I need kosher food, heres why." Only, the "why" he provided wasn't a reason for needing kosher food.
If he had simply said "I need Kosher food because my faith requires I keep kosher" then maybe we could debate that issue. He didn't. He said I need kosher food because I celebrate festivus, a holiday entirely unrelated to keeping Kosher.
When I said his request had to be "authentic" it means just that. He picked the wrong holiday to cite. I can't claim I need to keep Halal because I celebrate easter, I can't claim I need to keep kosher because I celebrate Ramadan, Those would be inauthentic requests. Switch them up: say I need to keep kosher because I'm celebrating passover! Ta-da, you have an authentic request. We've passed that threshold, and now we can address whether or not the prisons need to honor that request.
Just because his religious adherence to Festivus is different from the Orthodox way does not mean that he is any less of a follower.
No discrimination based on religion. If a person gets to claim "I require Kosher food because I must follow the covenant" then anyone who claims that Kosher food is a part of his or her religion should get it. Fair is fair.
No discrimination based on religion. If a person gets to claim "I require Kosher food because I must follow the covenant" then anyone who claims that Kosher food is a part of his or her religion should get it. Fair is fair.
Only in the absence of common sense. A frivolous claim for personal gain as this one obviously is is an entirely different matter from a genuine religious conviction. You can't just claim to be a Quaker and get conscientious objector status; you have to actually be a Quaker.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I guess the question to ask yourselves here is this: Are we legitimately trying to protect peoples religious freedoms, or are we trying to trivialize their religious beliefs to the point where we don't have to support them?
If the first, than an evaluation of whether someone believes something, or is just saying it to get benefits is necessary and proper. If the second, then the proposed "well he said it was his belief so we have to let him observe it" is the correct course of action.
I think its pretty clear that we, as a society, actually do care to protect peoples religious beliefs. Even if we disagree with them! The opposition to my position I'm seeing here comes across squarely as people attempting to do the latter. Which is, in actuality, the exact opposite of protecting freedom of religion.
This is an interesting conundrum. As far as this article is concerned, obviously he was being silly, why didn't he just claim to be Jewish?
But it does bring up an interesting question of religious beliefs? Do more people believing in something weird make it acceptable, while one lone lunatic isn't entitled to his beliefs?
Only in the absence of common sense. A frivolous claim for personal gain as this one obviously is is an entirely different matter from a genuine religious conviction. You can't just claim to be a Quaker and get conscientious objector status; you have to actually be a Quaker.
And why not? Who's the government to question your faith? As frivolous as the claim is, it is the ground from wich the courts rejected it that I object; That the courts decided that kosher is not part of Festivus, to wich I ask, who says it isn't? Maybe his denomination of Festivus celebrates with kosher food?
In other words, the major religion gets different treatment wich they demand because of their faith, however if someone comes with a new requirement based on a new belief, the government takes it upon himself to judge wether his faith is authentic or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
This is an interesting conundrum. As far as this article is concerned, obviously he was being silly, why didn't he just claim to be Jewish?
But it does bring up an interesting question of religious beliefs? Do more people believing in something weird make it acceptable, while one lone lunatic isn't entitled to his beliefs?
I think what matters is whether the person actually believes what they are claiming. If its a genuine religious belief it shoudl be protected. If its a frivilous claim for perks it should not. I think we can all agree on that.
The issue is that people, for some reason, think we should just always take people at their words about religion. The adjudicator should look into the authenticity of the individuals beliefs. And then they make a judgment call. its not perfect, no, but it is the best possible way I can think of.
I quite firmly believe that the people arguing we should just take everyone at their word are trying to trivialize religion to the point where they don't feel the need to protect it anymore. Whehter thats a conscious attempt, or uncscious I don't know.
And why not? Who's the government to question your faith? As frivolous as the claim is, it is the ground from wich the courts rejected it that I object; That the courts decided that kosher is not part of Festivus, to wich I ask, who says it isn't? Maybe his denomination of Festivus celebrates with kosher food?
But his denomination doesn't, because there is no denomination, because he's just a wise-ass.
In other words, the major religion gets different treatment wich they demand because of their faith, however if someone comes with a new requirement based on a new belief, the government takes it upon himself to judge wether his faith is authentic or not.
If your professed beliefs would put an onerous burden on the government, you can be damn sure they're going to want to verify that you really believe them, whether you're part of a brand-new sect or an old and well-established one. (See again my comment about Quakers.) And the benefit of the doubt should not go to the guy with the sudden and convenient conversion. Horrible, horrible precedent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You guys seem to be missing the point that the religion that he claimed as his basis for this doesn't actually have any stipulations regarding Kosher food.
No one is saying that he can't honor Festivus. They're saying that he can't use this as an excuse to get Kosher food because it's not actually in the tenets of the religion. Pretty simple.
Only in the absence of common sense. A frivolous claim for personal gain as this one obviously is is an entirely different matter from a genuine religious conviction. You can't just claim to be a Quaker and get conscientious objector status; you have to actually be a Quaker.
This would require the government to determine what is and is not a "real" religion and what constitutes a member of each. That is clearly a "religious test" and violates the separation of church and state as Darklightz was saying.
Besides, people seem to be forgetting that Mr. Costanza was a Jewish chef, well renowned for his Kosher cooking. The Festivus dinners were very likely Kosher. Even if this wasn't made explicit, perhaps this man saw this as the true intention behind the holiday and had his own denomination. It is a part of the tenets of his version of Festivus.
You can't give religious people special privileges. If some inmates are allowed to get a special choice of food, so too should everyone.
This would require the government to determine what is and is not a "real" religion and what constitutes a member of each. That is clearly a "religious test" and violates the separation of church and state as Darklightz was saying.
I think you need to recheck the context in which the phrase "religious test" is used in American law.
Besides, people seem to be forgetting that Mr. Costanza was a Jewish chef, well renowned for his Kosher cooking. The Festivus dinners were very likely Kosher. Even if this wasn't made explicit, perhaps this man saw this as the true intention behind the holiday and had his own denomination. It is a part of the tenets of his version of Festivus.
Bluntly: The hell it is. The justice system is not obliged to put up with obvious bull☺☺☺☺.
This would require the government to determine what is and is not a "real" religion and what constitutes a member of each. That is clearly a "religious test" and violates the separation of church and state as Darklightz was saying.
No it requires the court(government) to determine if a persons beliefs are actually what they say they are. There is, in fact, a huge difference. It doesn't need to evaluate to validity of those beliefs. It does need to evaluate if those beliefs actually exist!
Besides, people seem to be forgetting that Mr. Costanza was a Jewish chef, well renowned for his Kosher cooking. The Festivus dinners were very likely Kosher. Even if this wasn't made explicit, perhaps this man saw this as the true intention behind the holiday and had his own denomination. It is a part of the tenets of his version of Festivus.
You can't give religious people special privileges. If some inmates are allowed to get a special choice of food, so too should everyone.
So, what you're saying is: You don't think freedom of religion should apply in prison. I'm actually not too bothered by that. But you're saying it totally wrong. You are doing exactly what I thought you were though: Attempting to trivialize religions so that you don't have to protect it.
Wouldn't it be much easier just to say that people in prison have forfeited their right to free practice by virtue of the crime they committed? It would more accurrately state your position, and have the added benefit of not requiring you to argue a position you (clearly) don't agree with.
To be sure: you are not arguing for free practice of religion for all inmates, you are arguing against free practice for any inmates (provided that free practice requires special privileges) are you not?
No it requires the court(government) to determine if a persons beliefs are actually what they say they are. There is, in fact, a huge difference. It doesn't need to evaluate to validity of those beliefs. It does need to evaluate if those beliefs actually exist!
In most circumstances, there is no way of determining what someone's beliefs are short of what they tell you they are. If I tell you that blue is my favorite color, there's no real test for that.
Sure, a person can one day claim that they are now part of a religion that requires a special diet. You can look into that person's history and see that they were a part of a different religious organization and from this conclude that he doesn't really want to convert, but that could actually be the case. I don't think that there is a good way of determining whether they are being sincere, and so you have to judge the request and not why they have the request. This might be different were it a request for something medical related, for instance, since it can be demonstrated that the inmate does need this special accommodation.
So, what you're saying is: You don't think freedom of religion should apply in prison. I'm actually not too bothered by that. But you're saying it totally wrong. You are doing exactly what I thought you were though: Attempting to trivialize religions so that you don't have to protect it.
I tend not to think of prison as a good idea in the first place (though I readily admit that I have no alternative). Freedom of religion never means freedom to practice whatever you want anyway. This issue has come up in non prison contexts. Certain religious practices get free pass to perform activities we otherwise consider illegal, like the use of dimethyltryptamine (old story, there may be updates I am unaware of). It's just that, in the prison context, you can restrict things that would never be restricted normally.
To be sure: you are not arguing for free practice of religion for all inmates, you are arguing against free practice for any inmates (provided that free practice requires special privileges) are you not?
I'm arguing for consistency. Given the practical reality, I am arguing for the latter, ideally, I would want free practice for all inmates, and this would include religious based practices, but I believe doing so creates an unfair disparity in treatment.
In most circumstances, there is no way of determining what someone's beliefs are short of what they tell you they are. If I tell you that blue is my favorite color, there's no real test for that.
Its a judgment call. I mean, your logic can also be extended to say "well, there's no real way of determining if someone REALLY intended to murder someone, so we jsut have to take their word on it".
I don't see why we can't rely on the judgment calls. they won't always be correct, sure, but they usually will.
Sure, a person can one day claim that they are now part of a religion that requires a special diet. You can look into that person's history and see that they were a part of a different religious organization and from this conclude that he doesn't really want to convert, but that could actually be the case. I don't think that there is a good way of determining whether they are being sincere, and so you have to judge the request and not why they have the request.
Indeed, and that is why we rely on an adjudicator who looks at the evidence, hears the prisoners case and then makes a judgment call. Because there's not much else we can do. But the fact that it requires a judgment call doesn't seem like a reason to whole-sale prohibit it (or allow it) to me either.
Theres nothing wrong with someone looking at the evidence, hearing the arguments, and making a judgment call.
I tend not to think of prison as a good idea in the first place (though I readily admit that I have no alternative). Freedom of religion never means freedom to practice whatever you want anyway. This issue has come up in non prison contexts. Certain religious practices get free pass to perform activities we otherwise consider illegal, like the use of dimethyltryptamine (old story, there may be updates I am unaware of). It's just that, in the prison context, you can restrict things that would never be restricted normally.
Right but it does mean freedom to reasonably practice their religion. The ability to eat kosher foods isn't a particular hardship on anyone, so it seems reasonable. So if the priosner can succesfully argue taht keeping kosher is part of their beliefs, I don't see the problem necessarily.
that said, I also don't have a problem with restricting religious freedoms while in prison. but don't try and play it off as "oh everyone should be taken at their word about what they believe." That works for an internet debate thread. It doesn't work where a profesional can look at the evidence and determine if they are making ☺☺☺☺ up.
I'm arguing for consistency. Given the practical reality, I am arguing for the latter, ideally, I would want free practice for all inmates, and this would include religious based practices, but I believe doing so creates an unfair disparity in treatment.
Having an adjudicator look at each case and evaluate whether it is a genuine religious request, or a sham request is consistent!
you haven't demonstrated how it would be. You have completely ignored the fact that there is an actual person reviewing the evidence and making the judgment call!
But if we have these adjudications done, it is inconsistent in that it is giving someone the ability to do something just because it is a part of their religion. Why should your belief that you must eat Kosher food because it is a part of your faith get preferential treatment over my belief that I should eat Kosher food because it tastes good?
Its a judgment call. I mean, your logic can also be extended to say "well, there's no real way of determining if someone REALLY intended to murder someone, so we jsut have to take their word on it".
Which is why I would be a terrible person for the prosecution to have on a jury.
Maybe people should be quizzed on the religion they claim to hold.
That's actually what we do, in some circumstances. Once again I point to the practice of extending conscientious objector status to Quakers and members of other pacifist religions. If you claim this status, you have to appear before a panel of experts, and they interview you in some depth - not so much about religious trivia as about your convictions, your influences, your spiritual history, and so on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But if we have these adjudications done, it is inconsistent in that it is giving someone the ability to do something just because it is a part of their religion. Why should your belief that you must eat Kosher food because it is a part of your faith get preferential treatment over my belief that I should eat Kosher food because it tastes good?
Because we, as a society, were formed out of religious persecution and made a conscious decision early on in the formation of our countries framework that religious faith is deserving of protection?
I mean your basically arguing that we kill that whole "freedom of religion" clause that is pervasive throughout our countries establishment.
Its because our society has deemed a persons religion worthy of protection that we protect that religion. You might disagree (you do disagree) but society has spoken.
Which is why I would be a terrible person for the prosecution to have on a jury.
Eh, I highly doubt that. I'm thinking your speaking with much bravado on the internet (as we all do) but if it came down to it, you'd be willing to let a mountain of evidence convince you that the person who says they didn't intend to do it may actually be lieing.
I mean your basically arguing that we kill that whole "freedom of religion" clause that is pervasive throughout our countries establishment.
This is a strawman. He is saying that it is inconsistent, which has two possible solutions, only one of which is killing freedom of religion. The more logical solution is to extend freedoms that we give to religious entities to other entities.
A lot of people are saying that Jews must eat Kosher. This is not true; Jews want to eat Kosher. Similarily, this inmate wants to eat Kosher. The only difference is the reason that they want to eat Kosher.
If we give people rights based on their religion that we do not give to others, then we are discriminating against people on the basis of their religion. I agree that we should be accomidating of people's religions, but whenever we give one person a right because of their religion, it should be extended to all people.
A lot of people are saying that Jews must eat Kosher. This is not true; Jews want to eat Kosher. Similarily, this inmate wants to eat Kosher. The only difference is the reason that they want to eat Kosher.
It is a requirement of Judaism that Jews eat kosher. It is not optional. A Jew who is offered only non-kosher food is faced with a choice between betraying his covenant with God and starving. A man who simply doesn't like salami is not at all in the same dilemma.
If the prison clinic gives morphine to a prisoner who is suffering from a chronic illness, but refuses it to a prisoner who just wants to get high, is the clinic discriminating against the latter prisoner? Of course not. Accommodating prisoners' needs is very different from preferential treatment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Posted on December 13, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Updated yesterday at 5:06 PM
SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) — A Festivus for the rest of us?
A convicted drug dealer in California thinks so. He cited his adherence to the holiday celebrated on a famous episode of "Seinfeld" to get better meals at the Orange County jail.
The Orange County Register reported Monday that Malcolm Alarmo King disliked the salami meals served at the jail, so he used his devotion to Festivus as a reason to get kosher meals reserved for inmates with religious needs.
Keeping kosher is not one of the tenets of Festivus, which was depicted on "Seinfeld" as celebrated with the airing of grievances and the display of an aluminum pole.
Sheriff's spokesman Ryan Burris says King got salami-free meals for two months before the county got the order thrown out in court.
Source: KHOU.com
A little meatier gentlemen?
Havn't we better things to do with our courts?
This shouldn't even be entertained.
the argument being that the religion he claimed to be following (or rather, the holiday I guess) doesn't actually involve Kosher. I'm sure the prison would have tried to deny him the kosher food even if it did, and then perhaps we'd have more of a debate. But here he wasn't even arguing that it did so...
Basically its not a matter of authenticity of your religion, its a matter of authenticity of your request for Kosher.
And pray tell what makes your request for Kosher "authentic"? What other reason must you provide that you require Kosher food?
Well for one actually saying that you require kosher food! He said "I need kosher food, heres why." Only, the "why" he provided wasn't a reason for needing kosher food.
If he had simply said "I need Kosher food because my faith requires I keep kosher" then maybe we could debate that issue. He didn't. He said I need kosher food because I celebrate festivus, a holiday entirely unrelated to keeping Kosher.
When I said his request had to be "authentic" it means just that. He picked the wrong holiday to cite. I can't claim I need to keep Halal because I celebrate easter, I can't claim I need to keep kosher because I celebrate Ramadan, Those would be inauthentic requests. Switch them up: say I need to keep kosher because I'm celebrating passover! Ta-da, you have an authentic request. We've passed that threshold, and now we can address whether or not the prisons need to honor that request.
He never passed the initial threshold though.
No discrimination based on religion. If a person gets to claim "I require Kosher food because I must follow the covenant" then anyone who claims that Kosher food is a part of his or her religion should get it. Fair is fair.
Only in the absence of common sense. A frivolous claim for personal gain as this one obviously is is an entirely different matter from a genuine religious conviction. You can't just claim to be a Quaker and get conscientious objector status; you have to actually be a Quaker.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If the first, than an evaluation of whether someone believes something, or is just saying it to get benefits is necessary and proper. If the second, then the proposed "well he said it was his belief so we have to let him observe it" is the correct course of action.
I think its pretty clear that we, as a society, actually do care to protect peoples religious beliefs. Even if we disagree with them! The opposition to my position I'm seeing here comes across squarely as people attempting to do the latter. Which is, in actuality, the exact opposite of protecting freedom of religion.
But it does bring up an interesting question of religious beliefs? Do more people believing in something weird make it acceptable, while one lone lunatic isn't entitled to his beliefs?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
And why not? Who's the government to question your faith? As frivolous as the claim is, it is the ground from wich the courts rejected it that I object; That the courts decided that kosher is not part of Festivus, to wich I ask, who says it isn't? Maybe his denomination of Festivus celebrates with kosher food?
In other words, the major religion gets different treatment wich they demand because of their faith, however if someone comes with a new requirement based on a new belief, the government takes it upon himself to judge wether his faith is authentic or not.
I think what matters is whether the person actually believes what they are claiming. If its a genuine religious belief it shoudl be protected. If its a frivilous claim for perks it should not. I think we can all agree on that.
The issue is that people, for some reason, think we should just always take people at their words about religion. The adjudicator should look into the authenticity of the individuals beliefs. And then they make a judgment call. its not perfect, no, but it is the best possible way I can think of.
I quite firmly believe that the people arguing we should just take everyone at their word are trying to trivialize religion to the point where they don't feel the need to protect it anymore. Whehter thats a conscious attempt, or uncscious I don't know.
But his denomination doesn't, because there is no denomination, because he's just a wise-ass.
If your professed beliefs would put an onerous burden on the government, you can be damn sure they're going to want to verify that you really believe them, whether you're part of a brand-new sect or an old and well-established one. (See again my comment about Quakers.) And the benefit of the doubt should not go to the guy with the sudden and convenient conversion. Horrible, horrible precedent.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No one is saying that he can't honor Festivus. They're saying that he can't use this as an excuse to get Kosher food because it's not actually in the tenets of the religion. Pretty simple.
Besides, people seem to be forgetting that Mr. Costanza was a Jewish chef, well renowned for his Kosher cooking. The Festivus dinners were very likely Kosher. Even if this wasn't made explicit, perhaps this man saw this as the true intention behind the holiday and had his own denomination. It is a part of the tenets of his version of Festivus.
You can't give religious people special privileges. If some inmates are allowed to get a special choice of food, so too should everyone.
I think you need to recheck the context in which the phrase "religious test" is used in American law.
Bluntly: The hell it is. The justice system is not obliged to put up with obvious bull☺☺☺☺.
It's not a choice, though, is it? Observant Jews can't eat the salami.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No it requires the court(government) to determine if a persons beliefs are actually what they say they are. There is, in fact, a huge difference. It doesn't need to evaluate to validity of those beliefs. It does need to evaluate if those beliefs actually exist!
So, what you're saying is: You don't think freedom of religion should apply in prison. I'm actually not too bothered by that. But you're saying it totally wrong. You are doing exactly what I thought you were though: Attempting to trivialize religions so that you don't have to protect it.
Wouldn't it be much easier just to say that people in prison have forfeited their right to free practice by virtue of the crime they committed? It would more accurrately state your position, and have the added benefit of not requiring you to argue a position you (clearly) don't agree with.
To be sure: you are not arguing for free practice of religion for all inmates, you are arguing against free practice for any inmates (provided that free practice requires special privileges) are you not?
WURDelver
[/MANA]MANA]R[/MANA]GTron
WDeath and Taxes
WSoul Sisters
RWG Pod Combo
URSplinter Twin
URStorm
RBurn
Sure, a person can one day claim that they are now part of a religion that requires a special diet. You can look into that person's history and see that they were a part of a different religious organization and from this conclude that he doesn't really want to convert, but that could actually be the case. I don't think that there is a good way of determining whether they are being sincere, and so you have to judge the request and not why they have the request. This might be different were it a request for something medical related, for instance, since it can be demonstrated that the inmate does need this special accommodation. I tend not to think of prison as a good idea in the first place (though I readily admit that I have no alternative). Freedom of religion never means freedom to practice whatever you want anyway. This issue has come up in non prison contexts. Certain religious practices get free pass to perform activities we otherwise consider illegal, like the use of dimethyltryptamine (old story, there may be updates I am unaware of). It's just that, in the prison context, you can restrict things that would never be restricted normally.
I'm arguing for consistency. Given the practical reality, I am arguing for the latter, ideally, I would want free practice for all inmates, and this would include religious based practices, but I believe doing so creates an unfair disparity in treatment.
Its a judgment call. I mean, your logic can also be extended to say "well, there's no real way of determining if someone REALLY intended to murder someone, so we jsut have to take their word on it".
I don't see why we can't rely on the judgment calls. they won't always be correct, sure, but they usually will.
Indeed, and that is why we rely on an adjudicator who looks at the evidence, hears the prisoners case and then makes a judgment call. Because there's not much else we can do. But the fact that it requires a judgment call doesn't seem like a reason to whole-sale prohibit it (or allow it) to me either.
Theres nothing wrong with someone looking at the evidence, hearing the arguments, and making a judgment call.
Right but it does mean freedom to reasonably practice their religion. The ability to eat kosher foods isn't a particular hardship on anyone, so it seems reasonable. So if the priosner can succesfully argue taht keeping kosher is part of their beliefs, I don't see the problem necessarily.
that said, I also don't have a problem with restricting religious freedoms while in prison. but don't try and play it off as "oh everyone should be taken at their word about what they believe." That works for an internet debate thread. It doesn't work where a profesional can look at the evidence and determine if they are making ☺☺☺☺ up.
Having an adjudicator look at each case and evaluate whether it is a genuine religious request, or a sham request is consistent!
you haven't demonstrated how it would be. You have completely ignored the fact that there is an actual person reviewing the evidence and making the judgment call!
Which is why I would be a terrible person for the prosecution to have on a jury.
That's actually what we do, in some circumstances. Once again I point to the practice of extending conscientious objector status to Quakers and members of other pacifist religions. If you claim this status, you have to appear before a panel of experts, and they interview you in some depth - not so much about religious trivia as about your convictions, your influences, your spiritual history, and so on.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Jewish faith: You must keep Kosher.
Every other religion: You don't have to keep Kosher.
How is this not basic? Only Jews have to keep Kosher. That's kind of the point.
Because we, as a society, were formed out of religious persecution and made a conscious decision early on in the formation of our countries framework that religious faith is deserving of protection?
I mean your basically arguing that we kill that whole "freedom of religion" clause that is pervasive throughout our countries establishment.
Its because our society has deemed a persons religion worthy of protection that we protect that religion. You might disagree (you do disagree) but society has spoken.
Eh, I highly doubt that. I'm thinking your speaking with much bravado on the internet (as we all do) but if it came down to it, you'd be willing to let a mountain of evidence convince you that the person who says they didn't intend to do it may actually be lieing.
This is a strawman. He is saying that it is inconsistent, which has two possible solutions, only one of which is killing freedom of religion. The more logical solution is to extend freedoms that we give to religious entities to other entities.
A lot of people are saying that Jews must eat Kosher. This is not true; Jews want to eat Kosher. Similarily, this inmate wants to eat Kosher. The only difference is the reason that they want to eat Kosher.
If we give people rights based on their religion that we do not give to others, then we are discriminating against people on the basis of their religion. I agree that we should be accomidating of people's religions, but whenever we give one person a right because of their religion, it should be extended to all people.
It is a requirement of Judaism that Jews eat kosher. It is not optional. A Jew who is offered only non-kosher food is faced with a choice between betraying his covenant with God and starving. A man who simply doesn't like salami is not at all in the same dilemma.
If the prison clinic gives morphine to a prisoner who is suffering from a chronic illness, but refuses it to a prisoner who just wants to get high, is the clinic discriminating against the latter prisoner? Of course not. Accommodating prisoners' needs is very different from preferential treatment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.