Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SickSix wrote:
If enough people said they were Pastafarians nad they actually built churches or Pirate dens or whatever, eventually they would gain legal status. But that will most likely never happen. Unless militant aethiests take up the FSM banner, then stuff would get done.

It's being done, they're even being elected into office.

Christopher Schaeffer, a Pastafarian minister, took his oath of office to join the Pomfret Town Board in New York while sporting the kitchen utensil. 'This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander,' said faith follower Bobby Henderson.

I tried to get a google shot of the church, they have one,if your not at work and no kids are around, google images 'pastafarian church' It would be hilarious if the olive garden declared that it's religion. It could enjoy being a tax free restaurant and a place of worship for all pastafarians

As a atheist, I couldn't join the FSM church. I love eating spaghetti and that would start to feel like cannibalism. It was weird enough being a catholic and eating jesus every sunday while drinking his blood.

I agree with mokey tamer on this point, always hire and listen to your lawyer. I wasn't about to comment on the whole military and their eating habits so I specified the navy. and if we can eat good for 30 days before taking on more food, than surely the prison system could just as easily feed them better and cater to more than 2 religions. No bacon, that's just horrible. day 30 underway and we're having bacon and eggs for breakfast, or a ham & cheese omelet. Get in good with the cooks and they'll cook extra bacon and keep it warm on slider weds and you can enjoy a nice bacon cheeseburger. Ham isn't just a religious food, it's the ultimate american food. not serving pork products is just unamerican

 d-usa wrote:

I know I have probably been guilty of it myself at times, particularly back during our Ebola thread (may the mother's sister's cousin's former roommate rest in peace), but I think that almost all of us agree that there is a pretty good difference in tone between "I have some training, here is what I think is actually happening" and "fething peasants, don't know anything about anything, good thing I'm here now to spread the wealth of my knowledge, now here is the truth and the only truth, so all you idiots stop posting while I adjust my monocle and drink my whisky".

Almost all of our posters are the former kind, you and Polonius included, and the latter kind will figure things out soon enough.

I want a monocle now, thanks.

The point of a discussion board is to, well discuss things. I try to appreciate every opinion that I read here; some I agree with, some I don't, but they all have value if they're relevant to the topic or at least funny.

Group hug?

 Polonius wrote:
Interestingly enough, atheism is a protected religious belief.

Yet, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion.

 d-usa wrote:
And if people push hard enough, I wouldn't be surprised if would eventually provide a FSM symbol as well. But do they even have one?

Indeed:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Interestingly enough, atheism is a protected religious belief.

Yet, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a religion.

Not really. Plenty of theists don't have a religion. And at least some atheists do have a religion: http://www.uua.org/beliefs/who-we-are/beliefs/atheist-agnostic

Atheism is a rejection of the idea of the divine. It answers an unknowable (what is the nature of the divine) with a simple answer: they don't exist. It's a religious belief. It's pretty clearly not a religion, in the sense of an organized sect with a shared creed and rituals, but not all religious beliefs are part of an organized religion.

I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.

A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.

You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.

if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.

There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

 d-usa wrote:


The way I see it lawyers are like nurses (or physicians even): We get very shallow and broad training covering a ton of stuff that we will never ever see or use again for the rest of our careers. We have a very basic understanding of many things. We have a very deep understanding of the particular area we practice in. And we have no clue about a ton of stuff that is way outside of area of practice.

Yes, except every person who is on the internet thinks they know better than the ones who actually practice medicine, law, nursing, etc.

Precisely why I have a mug on my desk that says "Don't confuse your Google search with my Medical Degree".

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.

A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.

If you are going to pursue the idea that all religious and metaphysical thought is simply deciding which fictional story to believe, we can probably end this conversation now.

You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.

Who are you trying to convince here? You've never once pondered if there was a power greater than human? I'm genuinely surprised.

if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.

Not at all. Even if you've never asked the questions, you are aware that they exist. My cat is, so far as I can tell, unaware of questions surrounding the divine.

There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

Oddly, your brand of atheism is the sort of deep, complex belief structure that's entitled to protection!

Nobody is above the game. You can't stare into the metaphysical abyss, which we all do, and say, "nope, nothing worth thinking about here." Well, you can, but it's a conscious decision to not engage.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but you have beliefs.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.

A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.

You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.

if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.

There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

I don't know what worse, a there is no afterlife, or that there is.

Atheism is not religion like Judaism is religion, but requires exactly the same thought patterns

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards

I'm kind of confused about this. It isn't a deep belief structure... religious people believe in stories contained in their particular books. I think it's a book and a nice piece of fiction and nothing more. That really isn't very deep.

I went to church for a decade. I've spent quite a bit of time pondering things. That doesn't mean I get to throw away rational thought because of any particular mythological tome, and the amount of my peers invested in its belief structure.

I really quite simply don't buy it and that's it. There is nothing else. I don't need to fill a void, I'm not missing anything, I'm a happy person, I just don't buy it. I don't need it. I don't think it helps me understand anything or accomplish anything. I don't see a use for it. It's a story.

Why do you think my "belief structure" is deep or complex and needs protection? I mean I take alot of flak for being an atheist but I don't think I should be protected any more or less than anyone else is. Believing in something is a quality. Not believing in something is not a quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.

A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.

You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.

if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.

There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

No, it isn't depressing. Not at all. It isn't like I believe this is the only life I get, it's just all I know for sure and all I can prove so rather than make a way around it I accept what I have.

Even if it was depressing I wouldn't care, or change my mind about it based on that. That would mean the belief is artificial anyways... indulged in only because I felt sad when I thought about the alternative.

 d-usa wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards

In my wife's religion, Hinduism, we are married for 7 reincarnations. There are fates worse than death or nonexistence.

 timetowaste85 wrote:


Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

No, not at all. You have this life, and you make the most of it. I can see why people would believe in such things, and why people would want such things, but I think it's disingenuous to all humans to think that people need that belief to get on. The point of living isn't to look forward to what happens after you die, but instead to do what you can while you are still alive.

It's like the "no moral basis" thing. I don't need a reward to be a good person, I am a good person because that is the right thing to do. I do it because helping people makes both me and the people I help happier. To think that we need reward to do something is simply insulting to mankind as a whole. (not directed at you in particular, but I've had stuff like that thrown at me before)

As far as atheism goes, I don't think it, in it'self has the same sort of structure as a religion, it's simply the lack of religion. Anti-theism may be the word you (that's non-specific "you") are looking for. I think it should get the same protections as religious beliefs however.


Also, to be extra-transparent on my beliefs, I am atheist, as I don't believe in anything, but I do not deny the possible existence of something either. I simply require proof of why I should do so. I live my life to the best of my abilities and be the best person I can, and if any deity would damn me for that, I wouldn't wish to worship them anyway.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I disagree. Atheism is not a religious belief. If no one invented all of these creation myths, there wouldn't even be a word for us, we would just be people.

A rejection of the divine is not necessarily a good way to put it. There is nothing to reject. Man made stories are all over the place. There's no word for people who don't think the Lord of the rings is truth or history.

You say it answers an unknowable, I also disagree here. I don't need an answer because I never asked the question "who created the universe." There is no reason for me to ask that question. In the first place, I would have to come up with the completely invented notion that a "who" could create a universe despite that notion being entirely unneeded to explain anything, and unfalsifiable to boot.

if you think atheism is a religion, then all animals must also be religious, no? Hell, you might as well say trees are religious, bacteria, stones, basketballs, etc. Pretty sure they don't have creation myths and afterlife complexes. That's all that is required to be atheist. You simply don't have something many others have. The quality is belief in creation myths. Someone cannot have a religious belief if they don't believe creation myths.

There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

It's not depressing. Certain things depress me - not the lack of a god.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

Live your life and be happy. There is nothing depressing about that to me.

What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.

Glad we could beat that dead horse.

I don't think there is anything depressing about a person living their life as they see fit. The only thing any of us really know is that we're alive and experiencing a life.


I'm a radical ecumentalist in that I think everybody gets what they belief should happen to them on death.

 feeder wrote:
I don't know what worse, a there is no afterlife, or that there is.

I can see pros and cons with either:
Oblivion - pretty terrifying to just not be... but it's not like you'd actually be there to worry about that
Afterlife - yay, more existing... oh but death has a certain liberation to it, suddenly continuing on might get a bit awkward (imagine if you had secrets you took to the grave, now what happens?)

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
There may be people trying to make atheism more than it really is. That doesn't mean they're correct. If atheism is really listed under "protected religious beliefs" I resent that very much.

It's actually a good thing, as it means atheism is afforded the same respect and freedoms under law that religions have.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

What's depressing for me is the millions of lives that were snuffed out throughout human history in the name of religion. To this day people are murdered every day in the name of religion somewhere on this Earth. THAT'S depressing.

Alternatively, one could see that as, "in the name of political goals from influential and trusted figures have convinced otherwise Good people to snuff out lives." I'm not a particularly religious person (I think Agnostic might be the closest term). - Maybe alternatively, "atheist that errs on the side of caution." - I kinda go along the lines of.

"If there's no higher power, then hey, at least I tried to do Good."
"If there's a higher power and they're intrinsically good, try to do Good, because, well, God."
"If there's a higher power and they are intrinsically a big meanie, I'm stuffed anyway."


So, I dunno, I kinda see both sides of things. - I like that 'reasonable measures' thought (the whole, pirate hat, no pirate ship thing that someone said). - Though isn't that often rife with problems when you're not dealing with black and white, "this is allowed, this is not allowed" when it comes to allowed things Legalwise? Overall though, really I kinda fall on the kind of fence of, "prescribing your religion in any way you wish I'd great until it gets to a point of directly negatively impacting others or their safety."

So that's kind of, to use some recent examples on the UK press. "Yes to wearing a cross necklace as an air attendant if other jewellery is allowed. No to wearing it in hospital, where other jewellery is disallowed due to infection reasons."

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

I don't know. Sometimes I get so depressed about this life that I wonder if it would be better not to have another one afterwards

In my wife's religion, Hinduism, we are married for 7 reincarnations. There are fates worse than death or nonexistence.

Cheer up. Odds are that you are on the 7th round already.

I'd just like to point out, in the dispute over whether atheism is a religion or not, the claim originally was that atheism is a protected religious belief from a legal point of view, not a philosophical one. Atheism is not a religion in the philosophical sense, but it still falls into the general category of "belief systems that get legal protection". And the simplest way to grant that protection is just to treat it as a religion, not to invent a whole new category of religion-like things for it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Doesn't it get depressing believing that this is the only life you get, and afterwards...that's it? I have friends that are atheists. I just feel bad for em, having no belief in a second life. But to each their own, I guess.

Why does it matter if it gets depressing? Let me put it this way: imagine your spouse is cheating on you. That's a depressing fact, and you'd probably be happier if you never found out. But it would be a lie to say that your spouse is honest and devoted to you. And the fact that the lie would be a happy fantasy world to live in doesn't make it true. They're still cheating on you, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Same thing with god. It doesn't matter if the truth is happy or depressing, one life is all you get. Make the most of it while you can.

I thought the original point was that a prisoner that didn't know much about Pastafarianism tried to use it to get privileges in jail and a judge found the attempt less than convincing.

 agnosto wrote:

 Monkey Tamer wrote:

The legal standard that you have already formed your opinion on how should be construed has a lot more going on than you or the journalists that write about cases know about. My point, and my contribution is just that. The fact of the matter is, despite what arm chair judges think, is the man/woman in the black robes has the only opinion worth the physical effort of expelling said opinion into the world. And this is for good reason, and why I get a kick out of threads like this. I've went through this with clients, who much like you are so convinced they're right until they get to hearing/trial and they realized they should have listened after the judge ruled. Most people don't realize how complicated and nuanced the law is, and the "wealth" of information on the internet is partially to blame. Nothing makes me happier than a criminal that thinks he understands how to suppress evidence or get his case summarily dismissed based on his limited understanding of the legal profession. But by all means, don't listen to me. Demand strict and absolute adherence to the reasonable accommodation rule, because it's that simple . . . until it gets in front of someone whose opinion actually matters. Just like in this case.

Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.

I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.

That's the problem. Lawyers are too involved after the fact, past the trial and conviction phase. And often, they're either clueless about how things roll on the inside, or they don't care (all they see is dollar signs).

After I got out of police work, I went into corrections. Started as a C.O., and worked my way up to shift sergeant, then to case manager before I was forced into early retirement due to health. And during those years, I was forced to wade through the end results of lawyers in action, or policies implemented to avoid the headaches of lawyers getting in the State's hair because of frivolous lawsuits the inmates tended to cook up over bs.

"Con" isn't just shorthand for "convict". It also relates to the big game they play with the system known as the "Con Game". It's their way of continuously flipping off society and butting heads with the system. They're gonna "show you" that they have "the power", and how, thanks to their manipulation, the system becomes more and more a joke with each passing generation of "cons" being incarcerated. Being locked up gives them all the time in the world to figure out ways to get one over on "The Man" and his establishment.

Even if the State puts it's foot down and tightens up, sooner or later, the inmates are going to get their way. They have access to television. They have access to newspapers. They have access to radios. They keep up with politics and social changes on the outside. In other words, they do their homework. And if they can use it to their advantage, they will. They have nothing but time. And because of past court rulings in various jurisdictions up to Federal, they can get free legal representation while the State has to spend the working man's tax dollars to go through the hoops to deal with the crap.

The various civil liberties, inmates rights groups, non-profits, ministries, and civil rights groups are just more suckers they can play and weapons in their arsenal for the "Con Game". They know that public opinion, no matter which way it goes, can work to their advantage when political idiots and political hucksters get involved. They don't appreciate these so-called "advocates". To them, they're just a joke and people that can benefit them in some way. All that "feel good" crap is just that, and wasted on career criminals that have so easy now, that prison is just a vacation to them since it's nothing to re-adapt to life on the inside.

I'm of the opinion that there should be no special considerations for religious practice in prison, beyond what the inmate can use to practice in private. Because inmates just use it as another way to game the system and cause problems on all levels. Problems that can be kept at minimum, or rubbed out altogether. Like this pathetic lawsuit involving that "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense that cost taxpayers money.

I can't count the number of times on both hands and feet, either through catching them in the act, or finding out through investigation of an incident, that inmates have used church services to pass instructions, conduct gang business, pass contraband, or pass weapons. And more often than not, it's after the fact, because four officers can't catch everything when you have over a hundred inmates attending services (many of them don't even attend services regularly).

When the State was forced to add the American Indian "faith" (which was some crap concocted from watching old Hollywood films, and the writings of self-proclaimed "shamans" from Robeson County) to the list of approved faiths, and they pulled tobacco off of State for both staff and inmates because of the health and liability insurance companies, we had a jump in conversions to this so-called "faith". Why? Because it's practices involved smoking tobacco in a pipe during worship ceremonies. And that provided more paperwork, headaches, and frequent shakedowns of cell blocks (or "pods" as we called them) for staff. The "Con Game" at work.

Every year, when Ramadan rolled around, we had inmates change their "faith" to Islam. And it was usually the same ones who pulled this crap on my watch (when I was a Case Manager, I would have the exact number of forms needed on top of my desks, in every unit, when it rolled around. Waiting for them to show up as regular as clockwork). The reason being that they could eat breakfast earlier and supper later than the main population. The State ended up paying OT to the kitchen staff (especially the civilian staff working for outside contractors), and we had problems with a hostile inmate kitchen crew and turn overs, because they got tired of having to get up at three A.M. to feed what they knew to be a bunch of bullshitters. We always ended up having disciplinary headaches to deal with because of altercations relating to the pissed off kitchen crew.

And after Ramadan ended? Off came the beards and skullcaps. The Korans forgotten until next year. Some even changed faiths again (Rastafarianism was a favorite. They got to wear those big rainbow hats indoors for contraband purposes and to irk us). And because of court rulings on religion and inmates, there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it unless we actually caught them doing something in violation of policy. And even then, we couldn't stop them from continuing "practicing" their so-called "faith".

Prison shouldn't just be a vacation from their "job" (crime), a way to get "free gak", or a carnival for their amusement (with staff as the trained monkeys), or a venue to conduct regular criminal business and make new contacts. And it's shouldn't be a whorehouse-slash-singles match service either.

Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment. Prison should be a place where those who've violated the social contract, by conducting unlawful behavior and enterprises, are locked away from society, enjoying only the basic rights and privileges afforded to those on the outside (hygine,clothing,three hots and a cot, basic and emergency medical treatment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment from the State, safety regulations during work, and protection from sexual assault). Anything else, like luxuries and special privileges, should be at the whim of the system. Like the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

A lot of this crap is why I'm glad that I was forced to retire. It's a reason why I have no faith in the system anymore. It's all about paying lawyers, being thrown under the bus by politicos, appeasing supposed advocacy groups, and coddling criminals, most of whom will never be rehabilitated and will just come right back to the time-honored "cross bar hilton". Most don't even take great pains not to get caught anymore, since prison isn't as harsh and brutal as it used to be. It doesn't mean gak to the career criminal to pull time, since that's just the nature of the beast. Hell, most of these punks don't know what real prison is like, and wouldn't last a week if things were like they were back in the day (according to my uncle, who pulled 30 years in the California penal system for murder, and based on my own experiences).

I wasn't going to post in this thread more than once, because of the last couple of threads I've debated in ended up getting locked, since my views rub people here the wrong way (and the fact that I can be abrasive at times). But this is a topic that interests me, since it applies to personal experiences and my former career.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment.

Then stop putting people in prison for victimless "crimes". Then we can talk about how things need to be harsh punishment. But until then "tough on crime" is nothing more than sadistic brutality.

 Peregrine wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment.

Then stop putting people in prison for victimless "crimes". Then we can talk about how things need to be harsh punishment. But until then "tough on crime" is nothing more than sadistic brutality.

Then explain to me what you consider a "victimless crime".

Back in my day this thread had a topic. Back in my day it was kept that way.

As interesting a discussion as the 'what is prison for', 'is X crime bad enough' etc argument can be, it really belongs in another thread. So let's keep this thread for its topic and, if either of you feel up for it, feel free to spin off your own on this topic

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Your point being that we shouldn't discuss things that we find interesting because, according to you, our opinions/thoughts don't matter. Discussions, particularly online discussions, don't work this way. life doesn't equal court and hypotheticals and back and forth conversations are interesting to many of us. Further, discussing subjects that we are not experts on is a method to increase understanding on such subjects.

I'd love to hear you explain to the Office of Civil Rights how all of their requirements shouldn't be strictly adhered to; truly, I'd love to hear you try that. I've dealt with OCR and OIG attorneys for years and they are the most literal people created by whatever infernal entity you care to worship.

That's the problem. Lawyers are too involved after the fact, past the trial and conviction phase. And often, they're either clueless about how things roll on the inside, or they don't care (all they see is dollar signs).

Spoiler:

After I got out of police work, I went into corrections. Started as a C.O., and worked my way up to shift sergeant, then to case manager before I was forced into early retirement due to health. And during those years, I was forced to wade through the end results of lawyers in action, or policies implemented to avoid the headaches of lawyers getting in the State's hair because of frivolous lawsuits the inmates tended to cook up over bs.

"Con" isn't just shorthand for "convict". It also relates to the big game they play with the system known as the "Con Game". It's their way of continuously flipping off society and butting heads with the system. They're gonna "show you" that they have "the power", and how, thanks to their manipulation, the system becomes more and more a joke with each passing generation of "cons" being incarcerated. Being locked up gives them all the time in the world to figure out ways to get one over on "The Man" and his establishment.

Even if the State puts it's foot down and tightens up, sooner or later, the inmates are going to get their way. They have access to television. They have access to newspapers. They have access to radios. They keep up with politics and social changes on the outside. In other words, they do their homework. And if they can use it to their advantage, they will. They have nothing but time. And because of past court rulings in various jurisdictions up to Federal, they can get free legal representation while the State has to spend the working man's tax dollars to go through the hoops to deal with the crap.

The various civil liberties, inmates rights groups, non-profits, ministries, and civil rights groups are just more suckers they can play and weapons in their arsenal for the "Con Game". They know that public opinion, no matter which way it goes, can work to their advantage when political idiots and political hucksters get involved. They don't appreciate these so-called "advocates". To them, they're just a joke and people that can benefit them in some way. All that "feel good" crap is just that, and wasted on career criminals that have so easy now, that prison is just a vacation to them since it's nothing to re-adapt to life on the inside.

I'm of the opinion that there should be no special considerations for religious practice in prison, beyond what the inmate can use to practice in private. Because inmates just use it as another way to game the system and cause problems on all levels. Problems that can be kept at minimum, or rubbed out altogether. Like this pathetic lawsuit involving that "flying spaghetti monster" nonsense that cost taxpayers money.

I can't count the number of times on both hands and feet, either through catching them in the act, or finding out through investigation of an incident, that inmates have used church services to pass instructions, conduct gang business, pass contraband, or pass weapons. And more often than not, it's after the fact, because four officers can't catch everything when you have over a hundred inmates attending services (many of them don't even attend services regularly).

When the State was forced to add the American Indian "faith" (which was some crap concocted from watching old Hollywood films, and the writings of self-proclaimed "shamans" from Robeson County) to the list of approved faiths, and they pulled tobacco off of State for both staff and inmates because of the health and liability insurance companies, we had a jump in conversions to this so-called "faith". Why? Because it's practices involved smoking tobacco in a pipe during worship ceremonies. And that provided more paperwork, headaches, and frequent shakedowns of cell blocks (or "pods" as we called them) for staff. The "Con Game" at work.

Every year, when Ramadan rolled around, we had inmates change their "faith" to Islam. And it was usually the same ones who pulled this crap on my watch (when I was a Case Manager, I would have the exact number of forms needed on top of my desks, in every unit, when it rolled around. Waiting for them to show up as regular as clockwork). The reason being that they could eat breakfast earlier and supper later than the main population. The State ended up paying OT to the kitchen staff (especially the civilian staff working for outside contractors), and we had problems with a hostile inmate kitchen crew and turn overs, because they got tired of having to get up at three A.M. to feed what they knew to be a bunch of bullshitters. We always ended up having disciplinary headaches to deal with because of altercations relating to the pissed off kitchen crew.

And after Ramadan ended? Off came the beards and skullcaps. The Korans forgotten until next year. Some even changed faiths again (Rastafarianism was a favorite. They got to wear those big rainbow hats indoors for contraband purposes and to irk us). And because of court rulings on religion and inmates, there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it unless we actually caught them doing something in violation of policy. And even then, we couldn't stop them from continuing "practicing" their so-called "faith".

Prison shouldn't just be a vacation from their "job" (crime), a way to get "free gak", or a carnival for their amusement (with staff as the trained monkeys), or a venue to conduct regular criminal business and make new contacts. And it's shouldn't be a whorehouse-slash-singles match service either.

Prison should be harsh. Prison should be about punishment. Prison should be a place where those who've violated the social contract, by conducting unlawful behavior and enterprises, are locked away from society, enjoying only the basic rights and privileges afforded to those on the outside (hygine,clothing,three hots and a cot, basic and emergency medical treatment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment from the State, safety regulations during work, and protection from sexual assault). Anything else, like luxuries and special privileges, should be at the whim of the system. Like the old saying goes, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

A lot of this crap is why I'm glad that I was forced to retire. It's a reason why I have no faith in the system anymore. It's all about paying lawyers, being thrown under the bus by politicos, appeasing supposed advocacy groups, and coddling criminals, most of whom will never be rehabilitated and will just come right back to the time-honored "cross bar hilton". Most don't even take great pains not to get caught anymore, since prison isn't as harsh and brutal as it used to be. It doesn't mean gak to the career criminal to pull time, since that's just the nature of the beast. Hell, most of these punks don't know what real prison is like, and wouldn't last a week if things were like they were back in the day (according to my uncle, who pulled 30 years in the California penal system for murder, and based on my own experiences).

I wasn't going to post in this thread more than once, because of the last couple of threads I've debated in ended up getting locked, since my views rub people here the wrong way (and the fact that I can be abrasive at times). But this is a topic that interests me, since it applies to personal experiences and my former career.

Thank you for sharing; you present an interesting viewpoint, one from inside the prisons themselves, that we lacked earlier in the discussion. I actually find myself agreeing with your opinion that accommodations should only be made to the point where inmates are able to practice their chosen religion privately rather than allowing for proselytizing...though thinking about it, don't some religions require that practice? There's no easy answer in such a thorny topic.

 Ahtman wrote:
I thought the original point was that a prisoner that didn't know much about Pastafarianism tried to use it to get privileges in jail and a judge found the attempt less than convincing.

I read the entire ruling from the judge and that is the impression I got. The plaintiff also didn't seem to know the law either - cannot use the federal act for monetary damages, qualified immunity, he didn't show substantial burden, etc. The judge also admitted it was a sticky issue and I did not get the impression that he was trying to lay the groundwork for instituting the Inquisition into the State of Nebraska.