OVO

Ian Demsky: McNeil Island prison chaplain struggles with new multiple-faith rule [LINK-ZUM]

Tom Suss loves his job. A chaplain at McNeil Island prison, he's been with the state Department of Corrections for more than 15 years. "It's really a privilege to work there," the 63-year-old Catholic priest said in a recent interview. "When there's the opportunity to facilitate someone's realization of living differently, of making better choices, there's just no better high than that."

But Suss took a voluntary leave of absence at the beginning of the year because a new Corrections Department policy allowing inmates to profess multiple religions has put his faith into conflict with his duties as a state employee. He can take up to six weeks off and after that he's not sure what's going to happen. Though his bosses and peers speak highly of his work, he feels he might have to leave his profession behind.

"I'm thinking my days as a state chaplain might be finished," he said. At issue is whether in the state's efforts to protect inmates' freedom to worship, Suss should have to compromise his own religious convictions.

Article continues at link. Thanks as always to the excellent Religion Clause blog for the initial link . Prison chaplains are employees of the State. Their wages, insurance, mileage compensation, etc. are paid for by tax dollars. Is this not a case of the establishment of religion by the State? Can any other corrections employee - janitors, therapists, guards, secretaries - refuse to serve a prisoner based on their perceived religion?

There is no legal definition of religion. The benefit of this lack of a legal definition of religion is that it is made clear the State has no religious function. The State does not approve who is an is not clergy, who is and is not a member of any particular religion, and so on. These matters are left up to individuals. This also leaves the choice of being non-religious, even anti-religious, up to individuals.

The cost of this lack of a legal definition of religion is that at times religious individuals will overstep their domain of choice and attempt to make religious choices for others. Should an adult be able to decide the medical options available to their adult neighbor based on their religion? What if the medical option is abortion or euthanasia? Should an adult be able to decide the medical options available to their child based on their religion? The State is a poor judge in such matters, and that is why many of these choices are left up to individual states in the US and not decided at the Federal level.

In the case of prisoners, who cannot elect to move to a new state in the US if the state they are in does not accommodate their religion, the State has two choices. The first choice is to accommodate every expression of every religion by every prisoner. Prison clergy trained in every religion in human history must be available to anyone who summons them at any time, along with all the appropriate physical materials necessary to practice their religion. The second choice is to continue to consider religion a matter of individual choice, as is the case outside of prison, and not a service the State is obliged to provide.

Most religions include some influence from other religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all contain elements of earlier religions as well as shared elements. It is not the business of the State to define what is allowed within a single religion, and single religions contain elements of other religions. Just the same, it is not the business of the State to limit an individual to a single religion throughout their lifetime or concurrently.

Those who wish to offer religious services to prisoners should fund such services themselves. Prisoners should accept that the loss of some aspects of their religion are part of what is lost by being in prison. Prison clergy (if such a job should exist at all) must be prepared and willing to accommodate any religious expression from prisoners. The State should refrain from establishing religion. - Trevor Blake

Labels: christianity, magick, religion, theocracy