1.31.2008
More on Christo-Pagan Inmates
The News Tribune, who recently published a story about the Washington Department of Corrections' new policy regarding a prisoner's ability to claim adherence to multiple faiths, weighs in with an editorial opinion on the resulting controversy.
"James Madison would have had nightmares trying to sort this one out. Such is the muddled backdrop of a new Department of Corrections policy requiring the accommodation of prisoners who profess bizarre hybrids of belief systems. The policy was forced by a lawsuit filed by an inmate who demanded to be accommodated both as a Seventh-day Adventist and a Native American practitioner. The court decided he possessed that right."
While the paper acknowledges the philosophical bind this puts some clergy in, they also point out that the government won't judge the merits or sincerity of a religious claim, even if that claim defies "logical scrutiny". The editorial suggests an ever-evolving "muddle" of a compromise between clergy made uneasy by the new procedure, and inmates wanting to profess adherence to multiple faiths.
"The state would be smart not to push this policy too hard on chaplains who, like Suss, cannot accept it on principle. An explicit conscience exemption to the general rule would be in order. The best solution would be to accommodate the beliefs of inmates and chaplains alike, finessing the potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis - like finding someone else to provide the crucifix. The First Amendment is something of a muddle in prison. So the best way to deal with it there is probably to muddle through."
While we all "muddle through" this issue, I wanted to mention a a comment made on this blog by Al Billings. Billings, who did prison ministry work with the McNeil Island prison, heard plenty about Tom Suss, the Catholic chaplain interviewed for the initial story (and referenced in the above editorial). According to him, Suss isn't the type of man who will work towards an agreeable compromise on this issue, especially if Pagans are involved.
"Suss was *hated* by the Wiccan and Asatru inmates (the latter were forced to meet for holy days with the former as Suss didn't recognize their group). I was constantly getting reports of Suss' snide comments about paganism from the inmates and covert (and sometimes) overt pressure on them from him. Now, inmates bitch a lot about things that are minor but it was pretty clear at the time that Suss took his role as a Catholic priest to be far more important than wearing the impartial "Prison Chaplain" hat. Everyone is better off with him and his ilk gone from prisons that have to serve people who aren't simply Christian."
Which makes me wonder, how founded are the complaints made by Suss? The original article included a quote by Dick Morgan, assistant deputy secretary for the Corrections Department's prisons division, who made it clear that clergy wouldn't be forced to perform services for any inmate.
"Morgan pointed out that the department's policy doesn't require anyone to perform ecclesiastical duties that run contrary to the tenets of their religion. A Catholic priest, for example, would not have to give communion to an inmate who had not been baptized, thus violating Catholic tradition."
So what this really boils down to is purchasing religious supplies. Something any free person can do with no impediment. I, for example, can walk into any Catholic supply store and buy a vast array of religious items without a second glance (in fact, I have done this). No doctrinal investigation required at the register. In fact, I know of no doctrinal impediment to allowing the purchase of a crucifix or a rosary, many of which are manufactured by non-Christian hands in places like China and Taiwan.
Is the "controversy" here real, or does it arise from a personal distaste at these new freedoms granted to prisoners?
Labels: Chaplaincy, Christianity, Christopagans, law, litigation, Paganism, Prison
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
