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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well, it isn't a religion, so the court made a right decision.
Otherwise anyone could make up a movement with ridiculous ideas and get protection as a religion. This status should be restricted to movements with (ridiculous) ideas people actually believe in.

Scientology is a bet so its gambling and not a religion, Christianity uses other works so its closer to copyright infringement.

The odds are that there are only 2 meal choices: meat and vegetarian. Most people get meat, those with special dietary requirements get vegetarian. That should satisfy all of the religious groups. They won't do a kosher, halal and vegetarian option when a vegetarian option covers all 3.

People with allergies may be treated differently in some way, but that's a medical concern and not a preference.

Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.

Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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?

They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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?

They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.

I'm not sure denying a person the right to wear pirate garb is treating them like an animal, but that's just me.

It's not just you.

 Polonius wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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?

They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.

I'm not sure denying a person the right to wear pirate garb is treating them like an animal, but that's just me.

the current subject was how we feed prisoners, and how it's not unreasonable to offer a varied menu. Feeding them slop that's been marked 'not fit for human consumption' is treating them like animals.

but on topic, NZ recognizes pastafarianism as a religion:
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/zealand-pastafarians-tie-knot-first-000000674.html

I think there are two issues being discussed.

Religious freedom and how people are treated in Prison. The two are intertwined by one word. "Freedom"

If you are in prison, you should not have any. Particularly if you are there for a violent crime.This is part of prison reform and getting people out of prison for things they shouldn't be there for in the first place. Like smoking pot for example.

Yes, they should be fed things that re for human consumption, but criminals are treated better than the homeless in the USA. And the veterans. And the elderly. Some of those people don't get fed three squares a day, have a place to exercise daily, have a warm bed to sleep in or a roof over their heads.

The real question I have is why should we care so much about a criminal's religious beliefs and waste tax dollars in court for something like this?

Throw them on an island and let them fend for themselves.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
I think there are two issues being discussed.

Religious freedom and how people are treated in Prison. The two are intertwined by one word. "Freedom"

If you are in prison, you should not have any. Particularly if you are there for a violent crime.This is part of prison reform and getting people out of prison for things they shouldn't be there for in the first place. Like smoking pot for example.

Yes, they should be fed things that re for human consumption, but criminals are treated better than the homeless in the USA. And the veterans. And the elderly. Some of those people don't get fed three squares a day, have a place to exercise daily, have a warm bed to sleep in or a roof over their heads.

The real question I have is why should we care so much about a criminal's religious beliefs and waste tax dollars in court for something like this?

Throw them on an island and let them fend for themselves.

I hear the government wants to seal off Manhattan to create a prison island.

There is the base assumption that prisoners have reduced rights compared to non-prisoners. For instance, they have less rights regarding searches and seizures. (More searches and seizures are considered 'lawful'.)

The government cannot institutionalize religion, which primarily means they cannot set up a State Church. This has been expanded over time separating Church and State further. At the foundation of the U.S. there were some States with State Churches, the main thing was there so that the Federal Government wouldn't be showing favoritism to one State or another.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that you can do anything you want based on religious preferences. You cannot cut people's hearts out because the sun got the munchies or burn babies alive (though, that could have only existed in Roman propaganda). You could also look at restrictions on Islamic or Mormon polygamy for a less extreme example.

A lot of religious freedoms are granted based on how onerous it will be to allow them. A conscientious objector will probably not be that effective of a soldier anyway (unless he happens to hold the rank of sergeant and has a last name of York) but he can still drive a truck or work in a hospital. If Jews or Muslims want to hack off part of a baby's wienie and enough doctors say there are no negative medical effects (and perhaps some benefits) they can allow that. If a Christian wants to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", well, I'm sure the IRS will be more than happy in facilitating this arrangement! If you want to mutilate a girl's parts with major medical complications or want the state to pay for your pirate costume, you might run into some opposition.

EDITS - My grammar sucks

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.

Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.

I don't even disagree with you. Except in the case that concessions are considered unreasonable because they come from a "joke" religion as opposed to a "real" one. Any unreasonable request should be denied of course.

sirlynchmob wrote:


I hear the government wants to seal off Manhattan to create a prison island.

Sounds like that would be the basis of a cool movie!! Let's make the main character's name be...ummm....Snake maybe?

 Polonius wrote:

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.

If you have to go through a set of mental gymnastics to create an argument, it's not a very strong argument. It's easy to write a decision discounting something that you find nonsensical while discounting anything someone says by simply saying, "I don't think you adequately described what your belief is." I am perfectly capable of sitting in any church/synagogue and listening to a sermon then standing up and stating that what I just heard was claptrap and the religious leader did not provide me with substantial information on their beliefs. It's a subjective statement; I'm applying my own measurement of what I think a "seriously held belief" entails rather than just nodding and saying, "I can see you hold a belief." SCOTUS ruled out such strict scrutiny when it moved from the Sherbert Principal (somewhat).

I recommend that you look into the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for more relevant casework. Specifically, Cutter v. Wilkinson would be relevant here since one of the plaintiffs was a member of some pseudo-Chrsitian sect (The White Supremacist Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that had like 5 members (not literally but certainly less than FSM).

The point made by SCOTUS is that it's not the government's business to decide what is or isn't a religion.

 Polonius wrote:
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.

I expect them to follow established SCOTUS decisions. Clearly, to me at least, RLUIPA applies as long as the prison is in receipt of federal funds. If it's not, there's more latitude.

 Polonius wrote:

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.

Please cite your reference because the RLUIPA very clearly does allow people to create their own religion:

“religious exercise” to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief

Again, case law clearly states that it's nobody's business what someone believes.

 Polonius wrote:

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.

Who are you to judge what is or isn't a religion. As I've stated repeatedly, I could easily stand up and refute, on a factual, historical basis, every tenet of every "established" religion. People have the freedom, whether they are or are not incarcerated, to believe what they want and practice their religion. This country was founded on the belief that people should be able to practice whatever religion they choose to. Later laws were passed to ensure that "religion" was as loosely defined as possible. You, me, or the courts do not have the right to decide what is or isn't a religion which is why caselaw completely hinges on "seriously held belief" of plaintiffs rather than attempting to determine whether something is a factual religion.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.

Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.

I don't even disagree with you. Except in the case that concessions are considered unreasonable because they come from a "joke" religion as opposed to a "real" one. Any unreasonable request should be denied of course.

Now you're setting up a case where the state gets to decide what religions are real religions. given the 42,000 different types of christian churches, which one is the real one? Catholicism? so if your not a catholic you belong to a fake religion and any requests from them should be deemed unreasonable out of hand?

what you're suggesting is giving preferential treatment to those who share your religion.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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?

They should be treated like humans though, not animals. If you treated the inmates like humans they're more likely to become productive members of society again. If you treat them like animals, they become animals, and you release a more vicious animal back into society.

If you treat them like vegans, you don't need to buy them meat , thereby avoiding a ton of religious dietary shenanigans.
Krusty Brand imitation gruel for all.

Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

Respectfully, I don't think it's accurate at all. You appear to be arguing that not all religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, which is of course true and I agree with; the example of a Sikk in prison being denied the kirpan is an obvious and fair one.

This case, however, clearly was a judge ruling that Pastafarianism wasn't a "real" religion, unambiguously. He wasn't denied the headgear because it wasn't a reasonable accommodation, he was denied it because it was ruled that it wasn't a real religion.

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of
the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a
parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life,
and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and
FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the
trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection
as a "religion." Nor, the Court finds, has Cavanaugh sufficiently alleged how
the exercise of his "religion" has been substantially burdened. The Court will
grant the defendants' motion to dismiss

And you know what? He's not wrong. The idea that the FSM was a parody used to mock some religious advantages is totally true, and wasn't really even in dispute. As such, I think this was the right ruling - you have the founder himself saying it's satire.

That being said, it's a pretty unsettling idea that the state is now going to be ruling on what is a religion, and what is a "religion", complete with arbitrary metrics formed fully out of cloth by the state. That's why I am so unhappy with all these bathroom bills and other backdoor attempts to legalize religious discrimination - these laws are setting a really dangerous precedent, but not in the obvious way, rather they are opening the door for the courts to decide what a sincerely held religious belief is, or isn't.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.

Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

Respectfully, I don't think it's accurate at all. You appear to be arguing that not all religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, which is of course true and I agree with; the example of a Sikk in prison being denied the kirpan is an obvious and fair one.

This case, however, clearly was a judge ruling that Pastafarianism wasn't a "real" religion, unambiguously. He wasn't denied the headgear because it wasn't a reasonable accommodation, he was denied it because it was ruled that it wasn't a real religion.

The Court finds that FSMism is not a "religion" within the meaning of
the relevant federal statutes and constitutional jurisprudence. It is, rather, a
parody, intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life,
and the place of religion in public education. Those are important issues, and
FSMism contains a serious argument—but that does not mean that the
trappings of the satire used to make that argument are entitled to protection
as a "religion." Nor, the Court finds, has Cavanaugh sufficiently alleged how
the exercise of his "religion" has been substantially burdened. The Court will
grant the defendants' motion to dismiss

And you know what? He's not wrong. The idea that the FSM was a parody used to mock some religious advantages is totally true, and wasn't really even in dispute. As such, I think this was the right ruling - you have the founder himself saying it's satire.

That being said, it's a pretty unsettling idea that the state is now going to be ruling on what is a religion, and what is a "religion", complete with arbitrary metrics formed fully out of cloth by the state. That's why I am so unhappy with all these bathroom bills and other backdoor attempts to legalize religious discrimination - these laws are setting a really dangerous precedent, but not in the obvious way, rather they are opening the door for the courts to decide what a sincerely held religious belief is, or isn't.

I agree, though as mentioned earlier the legal precedent can be set by this decision. I recommend those in this discussion not get hung-up on Pastafarianism but look at the bigger picture. We have a judge who has arbitrarily decided what is and is not a religion, contrary to federal law on the matter. We also have the same judge arbitrarily deciding what constitutes "sufficiently" describing how the plaintiff's religion has been burdened, creating a situation by which any court may deny request for religious observance based solely on an individual's ability or capacity to espouse their beliefs. Where do you draw a line? Is there a line? Not even the SCOTUS goes as far as to define religious beliefs nor has Congress but this judge took it upon himself to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.

Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.

There is an actual sect of Christianity that says that Jesus only loves white people. Is it a religion? Who decides? It's plainly a vehicle to push a racist agenda yet was protected by the SCOTUS. Who decides what a religion is? You? Existing law even states:

“religious exercise” to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief

By that federal definition, all that is required is a belief by a person that they are performing a religious exercise.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.

Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.

It has become one though, it doesn't matter how it started. People have a deeply held belief that the FSM is real. Also with the Jedi becoming a recognized religion, now its the pastafarians time to become the religion it deserves to be.

The Temple of the Jedi Order is a registered church and non-profit in Texas[11] and their clergy are registered and ordained in Texas. The USA military allows Jedi to be listed as your religion on dog tags.10

“What’s on Your Dog Tags“. army.mil. Retrieved Oct 27, 2015.
“About Us“. templeofthejediorder.org. Retrieved Oct 28, 2015.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and they've been declared a "real religion" in the netherlands.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/the-netherlands-has-recognised-the-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-as-a-religion-5649017/

in poland
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/04/10/thanks-to-a-technicality-pastafarianism-is-now-an-official-religion-in-poland/

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

I think you're really failing to think through how institutions operate. There is very little scope for special treatment, food, bedding, routines, everything is aimed to be one size fits all. It isn't just cheaper that way, it's also the only way you can keep organised and supplied, the only way that the bureaucracy can operate.

Any time you step outside that creates way more hassle than you can imagine. If you don't get that instinctively, then just think about cooking yourself a steak, its easier to cook it how you like it. Then consider hosting a dinner party for 12, and asking everyone how they like they their steaks. Now you've got to record each request, plan when to start each steak, and track who is getting each steak. Now consider having three dinner parties a day for 1,000 prisoners. It shouldn't be any surprise they stick to one pot recipes.

As such you have to put a limit on any variation from the norm. And so you need a really good reason to break from that norm. Religious practice is a good reason, because obviously its more important than a simple preference.

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

Probably because they're prisons. I know employees goof off from time to time and you have to keep an eye for them, but it really is not the same thing as people imprisoned against their will who must be supervised by armed guards.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.

Read bold text - this is an expression that in so many words means - pastafarianism is not a real religion.

It has become one though, it doesn't matter how it started. People have a deeply held belief that the FSM is real. Also with the Jedi becoming a recognized religion, now its the pastafarians time to become the religion it deserves to be.

The Temple of the Jedi Order is a registered church and non-profit in Texas[11] and their clergy are registered and ordained in Texas. The USA military allows Jedi to be listed as your religion on dog tags.10

“What’s on Your Dog Tags“. army.mil. Retrieved Oct 27, 2015.
“About Us“. templeofthejediorder.org. Retrieved Oct 28, 2015.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
and they've been declared a "real religion" in the netherlands.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/the-netherlands-has-recognised-the-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-as-a-religion-5649017/

in poland
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/04/10/thanks-to-a-technicality-pastafarianism-is-now-an-official-religion-in-poland/

I agree. IMO Jedi, Pastafarians, and Christians, and Muslims are all on the same level. They are all religions. Equally silly and deserve equal treatment and recognition. As does anyone elses made up religion. If that twerks a nerve with you...maybe move to a country that doesn't have freedom of religion in it's constitution.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This is not a question of theology: it is a matter of basic reading comprehension. The FSM Gospel is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement. To read it as religious doctrine would be little different from grounding a "religious exercise" on any other work of fiction.

Which is exactly what Scientology is. Based on the novel Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. I consider it a novel. Other consider it Gospel. What's the difference here?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Despite the title of the thread, the judge did not decide Pastafaranism is not a religion, he decided that Mr Pasta would not be accommodated in all his professed religious beliefs while in prison.

This is understood, but can easily be seen as discrimination. Why does this judge get to decide which religion to accommodate and which to not? I know this has been discussed in this thread, I was just bringing up a point about your statement specifically.

All professed religions that might be imaginable cannot be accommodated, so there has to be some discrimination. In our current social system, that is done by the process of law and is largely administered by judges. Mr Pasta can if he likes fight his case all the way up to the Supreme Court. If he truly believes, no doubt he will persist with it, and his devotion will impress the court.

All religious exercises to my knowledge are grounded on works of fiction. That statement is a strange one... it operates with the clear assumption that other religions are not grounded in works of fiction, which to me is a somewhat unnerving viewpoint for a lawman to have. It's discriminatory for an uncertain reason, not objective.

That's what bothers me about all this. There is no literal difference between religiously believing in the Christian god and religiously believing in Superman. The difference is only cultural.

That's exactly the point of FSMism. The only thing that sets it apart is how few people legitimize behaviour inspired by it compared to other religions.

Can anyone say religions aren't grounded in works of fiction? That kinda seems to be a defining feature of them, throughout the ages.

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Personally I don't think prisoners should be granted religious concessions. However, if you are granting some religions concessions and not others we have a word for that, it's called discrimination.

Only if they're all reasonable. For example, plenty of prisons won't allow Catholics to have wine at mass, because they don't allow alcohol. Rastafarians can't smoke marijuana on the outside, much less on the inside. There's a balancing test, against a person's right against the state's interest in running a prison. So yes, having a non-pork meal for Jewish and Moslem prisoners is reasonable. Allow a Sikh to keep a knife while in prison, probably not so much.

The Catholic church allows non-alcoholic wine (mustum) to be used in situations where alcohol is prohibited.

I love watching non-lawyers debate this stuff. It's almost as good as the legal articles written by non-lawyers that fail to grasp the reasoning behind a ruling.

That's extremely interesting.
Are you a lawyer?