KevinC
5288
Raven, it seems like you read a lot more into Timex’s post than what he wrote. Saying “Jail is unpleasant” isn’t dehumanizing criminals. It is unpleasant. It’s not supposed to be otherwise.
Unless the dehumanizing part was about the thread at large and not specifically what you were responding to?
His solution to the guy avoiding the psychological torture of choosing between his sincere belief and his physical need to eat was, “DON’T COMMIT CRIMES AND GO TO JAIL.” That is saying that it’s ok to torture criminals (and also saying that it’s ok in this guy’s case because we all know he’s a criminal even before the trial).
Daagar
5291
This argument would make more sense if he wasn’t being fed. He is. It just doesn’t match his snowflake palate. This isn’t dehumanizing. And if it is, then the prison as a whole is in error and needs to change their menu for everyone.
Oh, and apparently his sincere belief is storming the Capitol is okay. If he claims Bear told him to, should we just let him go?
My opinion on this would be different if the guy was eating the food and just complaining that it sucked. But he was not eating the food, because he sincerely believed he should not. That’s a different order of magnitude than “unpleasant” things like it smells bad or I can’t play video games.
This is the exact argument made to justify forcing muslims to deal with the pork on the menu.
Islam is a major religion.
Organic is “that’s just your opinion, man”.
Prisons do not cater for opinions. Who would pay the cost of these individuals or are you suggesting rich prisoners get to cater their meals?
Hey now, it’s marginally better than tha–
Oh, well, maybe not.
magnet
5296
This guy hasn’t been convicted of anything, so there is no good reason to punish him yet. In fact, he will probably be allowed to go free before his trial.
Furthermore, the government is legally required to make reasonable accommodations for sincerely held religious practices. “My religion only allows me to eat Michelin starred food” doesn’t sound very sincere (and judges will certainly ask about your past religious “observation”). “My religion doesn’t allow me to be incarcerated” cannot reasonably be accommodated. Philosophical beliefs do not count either, so “I strongly believe prisoners should be allowed to have internet access” can be ignored.
On the other hand, “My religion only allows me to eat organic food” can indeed be accommodated, because organic food is not hard to find or prepare. If the judge concluded that this was a sincere religious practice (e.g. there weren’t a bunch of Snickers bars in his backpack) then the government is required to accommodate his request. Refusing to eat at all tends to support his sincerity.
Your lack of faith in my Michelin-based religion is disturbing. Even now, eager zealots seek entry into these hallowed grounds. The most honoured “M” (not the yellow one) will remember you, Thrag!
Seriously, organic food is not a religion. It’s just a preference. Who pays the additional cost of reasonable accommodation? It’s not like it’s a pre-existing dietary option in prison. I can imagine if he asked to be served only vegetables, that would be reasonable.
KevinC
5298
We were all horrified by Abu Ghraib but turns out the real torture was happening right here at home.
magnet
5299
“Who pays” does not really enter into the equation as far as the judge is concerned. This is the same law that allowed Hobby Lobby to avoid paying for contraception, which is far more expensive. Ultimately, we all pay for his meals.
As to religious practice vs simple preference: that’s something the judge is supposed to distinguish. They often look similar, and it sounds like she concluded it was the former. I will note that most people don’t completely stop eating for days simply because they don’t like what’s on the menu.
Just imagine he’s a founding member of PETA being forced to eat beef while awaiting trial for illegal campaign contributions.
KevinC
5301
Alright, I’m imagining it. Now what?
RichVR
5302
Me too. I’ll be in my bunk.
I think it’s helpful to know what “organic” really means. I assume Q-Shaman just wants food sold according to the USDA certifications. I’m sure his refined palate can tell the difference when he’s served a meal in jail.
The article indicated that even the public defender wasn’t sure it was on religious grounds. If the judge came to a conclusion I don’t think evidence was ever led to support this. Angeli even previously told a news outlet that the garb he wore was to get attention.
The bottomline is that there should be no special permissions granted for dietary reasons unless they were truly exceptional with evidence led to support it.
Also on pork and Islam - between starving to death and eating pork, the Quran says eat pork because God loves you more. edit: I do not support feeding pork to Muslims but the Quran makes it clear that in such situations, it’s not an immutable position.
As a one-off requirement for something being managed at institutional scale, it quite probably is hard to manage.
magnet
5306
True, but there is also a prison policy to make every effort to accommodate diets restricted for health reasons, and the mother claimed he gets sick when fed non-organic food. So either way, the judge can order the prison to comply.
