Denial of Religious Services

[Fiona]

A comment in another thread (TORTURE) sparked this question. Do you believe it is okay? ethical? judicial? or what? to deny an inmate in the United States Religious Services because of their behavior? At least in the Christian faith, this seems to me to be contradictory. An inmate is having a BAD day, so you deny him spiritual guidance? Makes no sense to me. I'm strongly against this but would like to here arguments as well as agreements so that I can be better informed. Thanks!

[Misu]

Well, I said it in the context as punishment for refusing to cooperate - we were talking about terrorists, programmed to kill. They don't view us as people, they view us as pigs that need to be slaughtered. They've been brainwashed into believing that their religion is telling them to kill us - makes sense to me to deny them access to religious things if they do not cooperate with us.

In the context of inmates in prison - it depends. When you say an inmate is having a bad day, what constitutes "bad"? Did the inmate shank someone? Did the inmate get frustrated because he didn't get a visitor, so he yelled at a guard?

If the inmate is being violent towards his fellow inmates, he isn't being spiritually guided at all - unless his "religion" is telling him to "take care of" anyone who gets in his way. In which case, he doesn't need to be in anything religious and needs instead psychotherapy.

[Fiona]

I don't necessarily disagree with your post. However, psychotherapy is "few and far between" if you will. sometimes, spiritual guidance is all these "guys" have. They are often locked up for calousness, lack of empathy. If they have a religious leader who can help them with these things... shouldn't they be allowed to have their visit?

[Misu]

I think that religion is a freedom granted - if they are inmates, they did something to put their freedom at risk. Now, if the jail system allows them to practice religion and treats it as something mandatory, like food and health care, that's different. But perhaps we should have either Copz or BDD answer this, because I'm not really familiar with how the prison system views religion for its inmates.

I'm going to assume it's a privilege, not a right, to practice religion in jail - based on my assumption, I don't think it's too much to ask for inmates to behave. Prison is a violent place - the less inmates acting up, the safer the environment for them. So if they value religion, and they don't want to lose their chance of practicing it while in prison, they should behave.

Now, I don't know what an inmate has to do in order to lose the privilege of practising religion while in prison, so I'm going to assume it's got to be something pretty bad - like stabbing someone or punching out a guard or something of that nature. Something that puts lives at danger. If it's for giving attitude and stuff like that - in other words, if guards are using it as a tool to control inmates into doing whatever they want, to manipulate, then it's wrong. But again, I don't know much about prison life except what I have learned through a former prisoner who spent 12 years in medium and low-security facilities. And judging by what I have been told, inmates pretty much had control of everything, even what was on the menu and when they got to go out for rec time. So, again, I don't really know.

[Fiona]

My most recent example- My son just turned 16 is in custody. He "acted out' i think it was getting angry and throwing something like a paper out of his room. This was considered hostile behavior and he had to stay in and not go to services... i understand why they did it. I'm just not sure it's right.

[Misu]

Well see, there you go - there's always a situation that will a person change their minds, and your son's case makes me say that would be the exception to my rule.

Since your son is so young, though, it could be they're trying to establish boundaries that he needs to learn not to cross. Today he threw a paper cup - if they don't put their foot down on the little stuff, who knows what he'll throw at them tomorrow (not saying your son is going to go Dirty Harry on them - please don't hurt me momma bear :) )

[Fiona]

lol no problem. He's a sweetie, but he has issues. and the boundary thing makes sense. If he learned not to screw up at least prior to services maybe it was a good thing. I just wonder... couldn' they perhaps have the "pastor" visit the ones who arent allowed out of their rooms? Just a thought.

[Misu]

Nope - because that's still giving in. The punishment isn't just he can't go out of his room - it's he can't access the things he would if he got out.

This is a tough time for your son, but he's going to learn and one day be grateful that he went through these experiences. I know it's weird and doesn't sound right at all, and I feel weird saying this to you because I don't know anything about your sons case. But watch him start behaving good and get good behavior points.

[Steve]

Fiona, the legal and ethical right of the government to abridge individual rights, in certain defined and limited circumstances, for specific periods of time, has long been established.  Speech, liberty, life, these and others may be denied.

The question then becomes, is it moral?

Morals, being relative, are difficult to define.  In my mind, they always tie back to what is ethical and just.  I can grant that there are circumstances where it is ethical, just, and just plain necessary for the government to limit some individual freedoms, on occasion.

The individual practice of religion is not, however, one of those circumstances.  Absent things contrary to maintaining order, such as animal sacrifice or drug use, I see no ethical or just, and therefore no moral, cause for the government to deny an incarcerated individual the right to practice his or her religion.  No cause, at all.

Some may offer punishment as a reason; are there not other ways to punish?  Some may argue "behavior modification".  Surely, a restrained dog will not bite; who is to say what the dog will do when unleashed?

Denying a person the right to exercise their religion, within reason, given the locale, amounts to nothing more than vengeance.  It is wrong.

[Fiona]

That explains most of how i feel about it. Thanks :) (and it's not just my son MISU) :)

[mikepd]

Does one need the trappings of formal religion to be religious? Can I not be in touch with my God since my God is within me? If I am allowed one book of Faith of my religion, is that not sufficient unto the need? If I am truly spiritual, aside from the conundrum of what would I be doing in jail or prison in the first place, do I even need a book? Are not my inner thoughts enough? Can I not meditate and ponder my place in the grand scheme of things for hours upon hours? There is much to know, many questions to learn how to formulate much less answer.

Incarceration is a loss of civil rights. You get most of them back upon completion of sentence (a convicted felon must appeal for full restoration, not sure for lesser offenses). If you want to speak of morals then do not do the crime in the first place.

[Steve]

Originally posted by mikepd
Does one need the trappings of formal religion to be religious? Many religions do, in fact, require a certain degree of "trappings", as you put it.  Islam requires kneeling toward Mecca, which implies the ability to kneel and knowing the direction of Mecca; many fundamental religions require males to wear beards, or wear certain headgear; it is impossible to pray the rosary without a rosary at hand.

There are many more examples.

Neither I, nor you, nor the government, are qualified to tell another person, absent safety considerations, how they may practice their religion.  May I also point out that freedom of worship is not a civil right but, under the U.S. Constitution, a fundamental human right?

[Fiona]

Anyone can be in touch with "their God" anywhere (as deemed by the religion) I am an embarrassingly devout Christian (except in some southern states) but I don t' need to go to church to be religious. I don't think this is a religious or not issue. It is the fact that this service is provided, because collectively they see it as a value... and then taken away. I don't necessarily think they were wrong in what they did. I just wonder how others feel. Personally, because of my beliefs, I think denying someone access to a spiritual moment is a crime in and of itself!