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.

 Polonius wrote:
The original article included links to both the plaintiffs pleadings, and to the dismissal by the court. I read the court's order, and I think it did a very good job of showing why FSMism isn't a religion, or at least not one entitled to protection.

the court cited an earlier standard:
"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."

the court explicitly stated that you needed to look for religious signs, and not look for mainly secular concerns. "Because RLUIPA is a guarantor of sincerely held religious beliefs, it may not be invoked simply to protect any 'way of life, however virtuous and admirable, if it is based on purely secular considerations.'"

I read the full order, and I think the Judge did an amazing job of seriously handling a ridiculous issue, while leaving plenty of room for minority creeds.

Well there goes my bid for tax free status as Keeper of the Holy Dog Bowl of the Great Wienie. I am not sure how, but I am certain evil cat people are involved.

 Polonius wrote:


You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.

Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.

You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.

For some reason.

I've heard that in Germany it is considered a terrorist group or something like that

Not quite, it's in limbo between being a banned organisation and being a cult. Then again, Germany does have a bad history with extremist groups.


It isn't very respected here either, because they had a direct hand in a few deaths over recent years.

 kronk wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So who the feth am I supposed to pray to now?

Bacchus on his throne of wine and women, beloved by all.

Except the Iron Druid, it seems.

Oh sorry. The answer we were looking for was Sanguine, Daedric Prince of hard partying!



Sheogorath would have also been acceptable.

Ratius wrote:So who the feth am I supposed to pray to now?

kronk wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So who the feth am I supposed to pray to now?

Bacchus on his throne of wine and women, beloved by all.

Except the Iron Druid, it seems.

Ahhh the Good days when God was a pip corporal and JC was a road guard....Colisseum was always packed

 Xenomancers wrote:
Honor all religious special treatment claims (within reason) - or honor none at all. Can anyone really disagree with that?

No. The part that has been brought up a few times and seems to be ignored is that honoring any religious claim entails an immediate question of whether the claim has real value to the claimant. Reasonable is not a one sided affair. It's a dance. The plaintiff claims something is needed, and part of gauging whether or not that need is reasonable is how important it is to their faith. Making Kosher meals probably costs the government/private firms a lot of money in prisons for example, but Kosher meals are a big part of Jewish and Muslim religion and it goes beyond "my book says pigs are unclean." Both religious associate the cleanliness of the body with the cleanliness of the soul (also something about obeying god, not partaking of the offerings to false idols, and a whole bunch of other reasons). A non-Kosher meal is in their faith, a direct threat to their spiritual lives.

Likewise the Christian practice of a "Church" is a lot more complex than "because I'm supposed to." The New Testament stresses the importance of the community of believers (Book of Acts chapter 2 for those interested), and that praying and worshiping together strengthens faith and allows the community to reach out to others and share the Word. This is part of why we all have those annoying proselytizers who always come to our doors at the worst possible moments.

On the other hand, the Pastafarian command to wear a colander has no theological argument behind it. None what so ever (this is true of Pastafarianism in general, which shouldn't be surprising given that it's a parody that spends more time mocking than building a comprehensive theology), which is why the Judge was on about in their ruling. Simply saying "because my religion says so" is not an accepted argument in court. This is why a member of the Church of Body Modification lost their suit for wrongful firing against Costco, while another member won their's when they were suspended from school.

 LordofHats wrote:


Likewise the Christian practice of a "Church" is a lot more complex than "because I'm supposed to." The New Testament stresses the importance of the community of believers (Book of Acts chapter 2 for those interested), and that praying and worshiping together strengthens faith and allows the community to reach out to others and share the Word. This is part of why we all have those annoying proselytizers who always come to our doors at the worst possible moments.

I think you're missing my point here. You basically proved the point that a book tells you you need a Church. One can argue that although you articulated very well why this book tells you you need a communal place to practice your religion, it can still be boiled down to"because a book told you so". I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the argument can be made that there is no logical reason to build a church since you can do what you say in someone's home.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.

Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.

You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?

I agree. So, now the test is whether or not someone possesses the necessary ability to sufficiently explain their beliefs to a court in order for that 3rd party to magically understand that they hold their beliefs strongly enough when compared to some undefined yardstick that a particular judge is holding it next to. Gee, that's certainly an ugly way to go about things.

Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


You can be a devout believer in damn near anything, but you need to be able to articulate those beliefs when you're asking for them to be accommodated.

Articulate those beliefs how? "The Bible says we need a Church". Why do you need a Church? Because the Bible says so. I've actually heard people say this. That's not very articulate.

You mentioned in your post that there should be a group that speak about their religion. Then you said it was a joke. There are people that have this belief. Who is anyone to say it's a joke?

In order to make a claim for religious accommodation, you need to be able to articulate what, exactly, your beliefs are and what practices need accommodating. The plaintiff in this case did not make any specific claims to what parts of his practice were denied to him.

It has nothing to with why. I don't need to explain why I avoid meat on Fridays during Lent, only that it's my religious belief that I do so.

Having an organized entity helps here, because there is going to be a common creed.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
I think you're missing my point here.

No your point is very clear. You're missing mine; where the argument comes from doesn't matter. It's how much substance does the argument have behind it?

The Judge laid out plainly in the ruling and that courts use in making these decisions. "Because a book told me so" is not an argument. "Because my faith requires X so that I can do a, b, c, d, and e and thus achieve Z, Z being the primary goal of my beliefs" is an argument. The former argument is basically what the inmate in the OP argued, and he lost because he could not expand the former into the later. There is a vast world of difference between "because a book says so" and a complex and inclusive theological system. The later may very well be described in a book, but the argument isn't "because a book told me so" and cannot be fundamentally reduced down to the level without losing all its meaning.

I'm not saying that's what I believe, but the argument can be made that there is no logical reason to build a church since you can do what you say in someone's home.

You can, which is why a Christian in prison would probably be laughed away if he walked up to a Warden and said "I need $500,000 for a Neo-Gothic stone church. Hood moldings, and lancets. A large towers at the end, and a bell made of gold and ivory." Asking for a space to congregate on the other hand would probably be granted, because most prisons can probably afford to spare some space for an hour for the locals to congregate in.

 agnosto wrote:

Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.

One of the things to keep in mind is that the Court only looked to the books on Pastafarianism because there were no specific practices cited in the pleading. The court didn't dismiss the claim because FSM is a joke, it did so because the plaintiff didn't specify his beliefs, and looking to the source material doesn't exactly help.

If you pulled a book on nearly any minority religion, no matter how obscure, it would be written sincerely, and include a description of the creed and customs of the sect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For general interest, here is an ACLU breakdown on religious rights of prisoners:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file78_25744.pdf

 Polonius wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Yes, I know that this case was fairly clear; however, some of the things that the judge wrote were pretty asinine when read outside the context of the case and very easily applied broadly to any religious belief that he determines to be false. It's just as easy to dispute Christianity as it was created by a man who openly admitted that it only existed because he didn't agree with the established religious authority and even went so far as to curse a fig tree....that poor tree.

One of the things to keep in mind is that the Court only looked to the books on Pastafarianism because there were no specific practices cited in the pleading. The court didn't dismiss the claim because FSM is a joke, it did so because the plaintiff didn't specify his beliefs, and looking to the source material doesn't exactly help.

If you pulled a book on nearly any minority religion, no matter how obscure, it would be written sincerely, and include a description of the creed and customs of the sect.

Time and memory. I'm not defending FSM; I'm simply stating (clearly I thought but apparently not) that it is very easy to expand the same sort of questioning beyond the scope of the current case and apply it to any religion, major or minor, that the person in authority chose to. I could, without a great deal of difficulty, make any person's religious beliefs appear trite and write an opinion on the matter. Take the cursing of the fig tree for example. If you had no knowledge of Christianity and I were to tell you that the person in question attested to believe in a religion that was created by someone who traveled around a country preaching against the local, established religious practices. That this man openly told everyone that he was the son of God and he was there to open everyone's eyes to the wrong nature of the established religion. That the religious law followed by all up until this time was now defunct and what he preached was actually what God wanted. That he openly associated himself with prostitutes and other people of degenerate character. In this age, what would you say about such a religion? Would it be valid? Could you find some argument against its validity?

Again, I'm not saying any religion is a farce but if the only determining factor of whether or not someone follows a religion is their ability to coherently put together a defense, it's not hard to imagine that a large number of people wouldn't be able to meet such a requirement; especially if one is in possession of data which shows that vast numbers of people who have low capacity (due to special needs or otherwise) to express themselves and are incarcerated.

I don't think the problem is that you can reduce any religion down to near farce. The problem is that FSM has nothing beyond the farce, no beliefs, no creed, not established doctrine, no dogma. Sure, it's got some stuff that's been scribbled out, but I think that's one area in which time matters.

look at Judaism. If all you had was the Torah, you probably wouldn't create a religion that looks all that much like modern Judaism. There is an enormous breadth and depth of tradition and custom and dogma that have been built up.

One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think the problem is that you can reduce any religion down to near farce. The problem is that FSM has nothing beyond the farce, no beliefs, no creed, not established doctrine, no dogma. Sure, it's got some stuff that's been scribbled out, but I think that's one area in which time matters.

look at Judaism. If all you had was the Torah, you probably wouldn't create a religion that looks all that much like modern Judaism. There is an enormous breadth and depth of tradition and custom and dogma that have been built up.

One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.

It has a lot going for it, they hold the belief that the separation of church and state is sacrosanct. To achieve that end they use levity, but that does not make the religion itself a joke. They believe children should be taught facts, and schools should not be used as a recruiting ground for churches. So don't teach my kids creationism in school, unless you teach the controversy and give equal time and reverence to the FSM.

 Polonius wrote:

One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.

If suffering is your major yardstick here, Charlie Manson could be the messiah as could the Heaven's Gate people or any other "cult" out there. Again, the point is greater than FSM. Yes, FSM is a farce at face value but if a judge can just sit in court and call something a farce, there's little point to anything being called a religion because each random judge could just say it's not. What this judge did was take away the "seriously held belief" argument by simply stating because the person did not (could not?) represent their beliefs coherently, he didn't actually believe anything. If this is the method of determination, every person with reduced capacity (of which there are many in the criminal system) is in danger of their religious beliefs being questioned by the court.

Out of curiosity, maybe I missed it?, did Henderson ever say that FSM is not a religion? On their website, the FAQ section clearly states that many people are "true" believers. Just because many people may feel it's a farce doesn't mean that someone isn't able to take it seriously.

 agnosto wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

One of the ways to show that's serious is to show people taking it seriously. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs... they suffer and even die for their religion! It's serious stuff. And that's where the group comes into play. Individual beliefs are just very unlikely to be seen as religious. But no matter how small a group you belonged to prior, if you are able to show that you have practices, odds are the courts will support you.

If suffering is your major yardstick here, Charlie Manson could be the messiah as could the Heaven's Gate people or any other "cult" out there. Again, the point is greater than FSM. Yes, FSM is a farce at face value but if a judge can just sit in court and call something a farce, there's little point to anything being called a religion because each random judge could just say it's not. What this judge did was take away the "seriously held belief" argument by simply stating because the person did not (could not?) represent their beliefs coherently, he didn't actually believe anything. If this is the method of determination, every person with reduced capacity (of which there are many in the criminal system) is in danger of their religious beliefs being questioned by the court.

The more you keep in mind what the case was about, which was the alleged denial of his right to practice his religion, the more the standard makes sense.

What exactly is a judge supposed to do with a claim like the plaintiff submitted? It didn't articulate what he wanted, or why he was deserved it. A legal claim needs to have a basis. Courts will usually bend over backwards to find such a claim for a pro se plaintiff, but sometimes there just isn't' a claim on which relief can be granted.

Suffering was one of my points. The law simply does not allow a person to create their own religion, and then expect to receive all the benefits. That might sound harsh, but the right to religion is based not on some aspect of identity politics, but because religious beliefs have always, and probably will always, have enormous influence on the believer.

This isn't a persecuted religion. It's a group of people that are using the trappings of religion to make a really good point, but it's just not a religion from any philosophical or legal standard.

 Polonius wrote:
The more you keep in mind what the case was about

That would mean not ignoring the realities of the case at hand, and when you have an axe to grind truth doesn't matter, just the axe.

 jreilly89 wrote:
The US is a large, large place and people have been silly enough to believe in almost anything. I posit to you that given infinite time and resources, I could find someone who truly believed in Pastafarianism the way a Christian or Buddhist does in their own religion.

The US is not infinite, 300m people is a lot of people, but not enough for everything imaginable to exist. And while it is possible for this true believing Pastafarian to be out there, at this point we have no evidence of his existence, and even less evidence that he has been harshly treated by having his religion denied in courts of law.

It is hard enough to build a legal framework to make allowances for actual, real world things. Wanting a legal framework that also accounts for every possible hypothetical is sacrificing real world practicality for the sake of hypothetical neatness.

Also, I have to side with Peregrine on this one, is it really that unbelievable that someone would be denied a claim based on their religion? People have been persecuting others based on their religion for hundreds of centuries, going all the way back to the Romans persecuting people that worshiped Isis and even further back.

No really, think this through. If the courts refuse to place any judgement on what is a genuine religious faith, then people will be free to exploit that for whatever they want. "My religion means my daily exercise is digging tunnels under the prison wall, and its sacred so there's no guards allowed to watch."

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Disqualifying the belief of a prisoner who was claiming a parody religion, and who showed little knowledge of that religion is a bit of a no-brainer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Until we can read peoples minds...that would be relatively impossible. Until then it should be treated just as every other religion - regardless of it's origin. And even then - why is sincerity of belief an issue here? Christians and Muslims and Jews aren't put through the sincerity test. Also anyone could pretend to believe in one of these "established" religions just to get their preferred treatment...No one takes issue with this ether.

I've read your argument three times over and near as I can tell your argument basically comes down to saying we can never, in any way, conclude that another person might not be genuine in their religious faith. That we cannot apply judgement and reason to determine if someone is being genuine or not.

That argument doesn't work, because there are real world effects to accomodating someone's religion, so of course some people will attempt to manipulate that to get better treatment (in prison, for instance). As such, it becomes necessary to apply judgement and reason to someone's claim of religious belief. You may get uncomfortable with some of the things that we sometimes have to apply judgement to but oh well, it has to be done.

 sebster wrote:
No really, think this through. If the courts refuse to place any judgement on what is a genuine religious faith, then people will be free to exploit that for whatever they want. "My religion means my daily exercise is digging tunnels under the prison wall, and its sacred so there's no guards allowed to watch."

I said this before, but I'll say it again: it means no such thing. All you have to do is set the standard based on the reasonableness of the request, not the content of the religion that motivated it. So, for example, all inmates are allowed up to X amount of reading material, which can include religious texts if they wish. All inmates are allowed Y amount of religious or personal symbols (whether a Christian cross, a Pastafarian hat, etc), which can be stored by the prison and given to the inmate under supervision if they present a safety or security risk. Etc.

Under this standard the prisoner demanding a religious right to dig tunnels under the wall would obviously have their request refused. It doesn't matter whether or not the religion is legitimate or not, the state has a legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from digging tunnels under the prison walls for any reason.

 Peregrine wrote:
I said this before, but I'll say it again: it means no such thing. All you have to do is set the standard based on the reasonableness of the request, not the content of the religion that motivated it.

Yes, you did say it before, and then I responded explaining why that didn't work. I'm guessing you missed my response.

Anyhow, the reason that argument doesn't work is because you cannot judge reasonableness in isolation, seperate from the motivation. "I would like a special meal that doesn't have pork in it" is entirely reasonable if it is due to a religious conviction, but it is not reasonable if the in-mate just happens to not like pork very much.

Your argument to just give everyone accommodation isn't practical - are you going to give every single prisoner a choice of many meal options, including meals made with every imaginable kind of religious consideration? What about work times? Muslim in-mates will need to take breaks to take the call to prayer, and the exact time of day that happens varies according to the sun. Are you going to give every single prisoner the work flexibility to take a break when they please?

 sebster wrote:
Anyhow, the reason that argument doesn't work is because you cannot judge reasonableness in isolation, seperate from the motivation. "I would like a special meal that doesn't have pork in it" is entirely reasonable if it is due to a religious conviction, but it is not reasonable if the in-mate just happens to not like pork very much.

But why isn't that reasonable? Why is it so important to feed every prisoner the same food unless they can provide a reason that satisfies your personal standards? Why is "I hate the taste of pork" any less valid than "my religion doesn't let me eat pork"? If you have the capacity to provide the alternative meal to an inmate with a religious objection then you have the capacity to provide it to one with a non-religious objection.

Your argument to just give everyone accommodation isn't practical - are you going to give every single prisoner a choice of many meal options, including meals made with every imaginable kind of religious consideration?

No, of course you don't have to produce every imaginable kind of meal. You produce a standard meal and wait until someone has a request for an alternative, and then judge the reasonableness of providing that alternative. For example, the inmate who doesn't want pork in their meals because they're vegetarian is probably easy enough to satisfy. There are plenty of alternative foods that meet the no-pork requirement and are easily available at a reasonable cost. On the other hand, the inmate who demands $100 steaks for every meal is obviously asking for something beyond the reasonable scope of prison meals, and it doesn't matter whether their request is motivated by religion or simply by a desire to have a really nice steak for dinner.

What about work times? Muslim in-mates will need to take breaks to take the call to prayer, and the exact time of day that happens varies according to the sun. Are you going to give every single prisoner the work flexibility to take a break when they please?

Why are prison jobs unable to handle something that non-prison businesses seem to deal with just fine?

For the perfectly obvious reason that prisoners can't be treated as non-prisoners.

 Peregrine wrote:
But why isn't that reasonable?

Because at that point you might as well just say screw it and tell everyone in prison to suck it up and eat pork.

Why is "I hate the taste of pork" any less valid than "my religion doesn't let me eat pork"?

Already explained this.

Making Kosher meals probably costs the government/private firms a lot of money in prisons for example, but Kosher meals are a big part of Jewish and Muslim religion and it goes beyond "my book says pigs are unclean." Both religious associate the cleanliness of the body with the cleanliness of the soul (also something about obeying god, not partaking of the offerings to false idols, and a whole bunch of other reasons). A non-Kosher meal is in their faith, a direct threat to their spiritual lives.

Though I dumbed this down (Muslims don't do Kosher they have something else that's kind of similar).

The person who just doesn't like the taste of pork probably doesn't think they're mortal soul is being put in jeopardy if they're forced to eat it, and won't suffer the psychological duress that comes from that. You can't practically account for religion while simultaneously removing individual religious needs from any and all considerations. No one will ever look at a request in a vacuum, no matter how much you wish for a blind allowance that takes nothing theological into consideration (yet is magically still "reasoned"). The reason a Jew might get a kosher meal while someone else might not get one involves the immediate question of how significant kosher food is to Jewish faith. It's not just about cost to the state, it's about severity of need to the person.

Someone might not like pork, but if that's all they got then they can suck it up. They're in prison and not liking pork is not a valid argument for tax payers to foot the bill of increased logistics for a diverse menu that allows everyone to eat whatever $5 meal they choose. If you can't give me a good reason why you can't eat that $5 pork sandwich, well too bad. You're eating the $5 pork sandwich cause it's what I have and Florida State Prison isn't a franchise of Subway. I don't think you realize how far this could go. Do prisons need to make Kachera undergarments available to everyone to? Theaton reading sessions? Those nasty little crackers my fellows use at Communion? Wine? Why are we incurring the costs of providing everything to everyone even if it has nothing to do with their belief system? Further, how are we going to gauge the reasonableness of future requests that fall outside your "one size fits all" allowance system, except to do exactly what just happened in the OP article? If we're just going to have to do that anyway, why are we carrying on this costly charade of blindness? We're intelligent creatures. We should be able to figure that special needs need not be granted to everyone.

Why are prison jobs unable to handle something that non-prison businesses seem to deal with just fine?

Because it's prison, and being in prison will never be anything like a 9 to 5 job.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For the perfectly obvious reason that prisoners can't be treated as non-prisoners.

They aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The person who just doesn't like the taste of pork probably doesn't think they're mortal soul is being put in jeopardy if they're forced to eat it, and won't suffer the psychological duress that comes from that.

No, but they may suffer the duress of "eat this thing that makes me want to vomit, or go hungry". Or a vegetarian prisoner might have to suffer the distress of participating in the murder of an animal for the convenience of the prison system.

Someone might not like pork, but if that's all they got then they can suck it up. They're in prison and not liking pork is not a valid argument for tax payers to foot the bill of increased logistics for a diverse menu that allows everyone to eat whatever $5 meal they choose.

That's a nice straw man there. I am not advocating that everyone should be able to get any meal they choose. There's likely a fairly straightforward middle ground of providing a small menu of items, such that anyone with a specific "I won't eat that" objection to a particular item can still get a meal.

Why are we incurring the costs of providing everything to everyone even if it has nothing to do with their belief system?

Because you're already incurring that cost. There are a whole lot of religious prisoners whose religions beyond dispute even in this thread. So if you're willing to pay $X for one prisoner's religious needs then why does it matter what particular religion you're paying $X for? Rather than trying to determine whether or not a religion is legitimate or not simply allow each prisoner a fixed budget of $X which they can use to provide their religious items.

Further, how are we going to gauge the reasonableness of future requests that fall outside your "one size fits all" allowance system, except to do exactly what just happened in the OP article?

The same way you already gauge the reasonableness of future requests. A prisoner who requests a loaded machine gun is not going to get it, no matter how many bible verses they can cite in support of their request. You simply ask the question "is it reasonable for a prisoner to have this", and if the answer is yes then you grant the request regardless of your opinion of the reason for making it.

Because it's prison, and being in prison will never be anything like a 9 to 5 job.

In what way does this matter in this specific situation? You can't just say "it's not a 9 to 5 job" and assume that it means there must be some kind of impossible obstacle.

Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.

It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.

Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Prisoners sadly are fated to suffer from restricted freedom of their movements and to some extent their diets.

And they still do, under the system I proposed.

It's due to proprortionality. Everyone can't be catered for on a limited budget.

Then improve the budget or reduce the number of prisoners. In fact, I would consider significantly increasing the costs of prison to be a good thing, as it would make the state a lot less willing to put people in prison for things like possession of drugs for personal use. Keeping someone in prison should be expensive and difficult enough that it is reserved for people who legitimately need to be kept away from the rest of society, not people whose main offense is being a convenient scapegoat for "tough on crime" politicians.

Why do you think this is wrong? Why do you think prisoners should be granted the same freedoms and choices are people who aren't prisoners?

Why do you think that posting an obvious straw man argument like this is ok? You have presumably read my posts, and you know that nowhere in them have I said that prisoners should have the same freedoms and choices as people who aren't prisoners. In fact I have explicitly stated that they shouldn't, complete with specific examples of things that non-prisoners can do but prisoners can't.

You should start your own prison company and enact all these reforms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You should start your own prison company and enact all these reforms.

Is that really your only response to my argument? I mean, if you don't want to discuss the subject with me any further that's fine, but there are much better ways of saying so.

Pastafarianism is not a religion? What about Scientology then? It was invented by a Science Fiction writer...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You should start your own prison company and enact all these reforms.

Is that really your only response to my argument? I mean, if you don't want to discuss the subject with me any further that's fine, but there are much better ways of saying so.

I don't want to discuss the subject with you any more.