Hacker News Reader

Comment by benjohnson | Hacker News Reader

This goes against my religious beliefs - Christians are called to visit prisoners.

“I was in prison and you came to visit me … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matthew 25:36, 40

View on HN

That doesn't say you have to visit people in prison, just that it's a good thing to do. It also doesn't say anything against video conferences.

Well no kidding; Skype did not exist over 2 millennia ago. It's still an obvious application of the message to today's world.

I will donate to any effort that brings this to court or a political campaign that runs this line.

You can do what you want in your own home, but you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way that follows your choice of religious texts. I can understand that it's important to take religious views of prisoners into account but if you're just some random person not involved with the prisoner then you'll have to lump it I'm afraid. As it should be.

> "you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way"

> "As it should be."

"You can't say how things ought to be run, but i can."

The former a constitutional fact of law, the latter an opinion.

I also believe the former to be a moral absolute, which is a second opinion.

Clear?

We've asked you before not to make troll accounts on HN. It's time you stopped.

Actually, in the United States, you can. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...), no law can interfere with someone's practice of their religion, unless the law a) does something really important (a "compelling government interest"), and b) there is no reasonable alternative. This applies to the federal government, and many but not all states.

But no law has been created to prevent visits, it's just not something the prisons do anymore.

Unless you think religious people should have the power to force you to offer services you don't want to this doesn't apply.

'My religion says that you must offer the public tours around your house.'

This applies to prisons because they are part of the government, and are therefore state actors. It doesn't apply to private citizens.

Really? Following your bogus argument, the next thing would be to feed the prisoners with bread and water - no law has been created to prevent hot meals, it's "just not something the prisons do anymore".

Prisons are entities which have the power to force human beings into their services - so society has to force the rules over them. This has nothing to do with religion.

But the whole context of this subthread started by benjohnson is about how this goes against the Christian beliefs, and that's what jughtuyi is replying to.

>>the next thing would be to feed the prisoners with bread and water

Sadly, things somewhat close to this already exist. A common "tough on crime" statement goes something like "well, they're getting 3 hot meals a day".

In Texas, right now, many of the prisons give prisoners 2 meals a day on weekends instead of 3...supposedly because staffing it too low to serve 3.

That's unbelievably silly. Having laws arbitrarily apply based on the internal beliefs someone has is incredibly inelegant. Freedom of religion should be an emergent property of freedom of speech/thought/association/etc. For instance, it should be illegal to cruelly slaughter animals, regardless of your personal feeling on the subject. Yet certain groups get exemptions and continue otherwise illegal animal treatment because they, essentially, want to.

RFRAs are a very useful meta-law which do things like, say, prevent prisons from requiring Muslims to shave their beards, or requiring the Jews to eat non-kosher food like pork byproducts in the prison cafeteria (or face starvation). It also prevents the Feds from raiding an Apache powwow and seizing the eagle feathers and fining the dancers hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Actual court case.)

The ACLU used to support RFRA cases quite often.

Prevention of animal cruelty is a compelling interest and can in fact be enforced under RFRAs, using the least-restrictive means possible.

I think the parent poster's point was that ideological freedoms should not be limited to just religions.

I understand the concept, it still doesn't make it right. But why should it be OK for one set of people to keep beards, just because they really want to, but not for others? Or why should one group be allowed to keep knives, because they swear it's super-important to them, when others are not allowed?

If I'm just disgusted by, say, chicken, or broccoli, shouldn't my assertion to that effect be enough? Seems rather arbitrary to decide some sets of beliefs get special treatment over others, just because they were loud or big enough or "sincere" enough.

As with all laws and governance, granting religious freedoms as opposed to freedoms of every ideology strikes a balance. Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs. The structured part makes it easy to enforce a law of religious freedom, because there is a vast body of source and interpretative work to use. The widespread part means that you are making a concession to a significant part of the population.

There's nothing arbitrary about the choice - it is precisely because religion is both structured and widespread that makes it a good candidate for such a law. Another example of a widespread belief that tends to get exemptions from many laws is freedom of speech(e.g. exemptions from defamation, copyright).

Religion presents a widespread, structured set of beliefs.

I'd rather say that religion presents a social identity, and prescribes a set of beliefs. The identity is what matters more to most people than the beliefs.

However structured it may be, you still end up with a set of arbitrary limitations based on majority rule. I agree with the GP that if some religious conventions are innocuous enough that they can be allowed for a part of the population, then they should be allowed for all, regardless of social identity. And if certain conventions are deemed dangerous, they should be disallowed regardless of religious sanctity.

Indians are allowed to poach endangered animals?

It's legal pragmatism.

You won't kill yourself over broccoli. They will die to practice their religious beliefs. These things just aren't worth it. It's not worth it to try to restrict trivial shit - it's idiotic.

We already restrict religious freedom where it counts, which is when it interferes with someone's rights.

In the form of political participation and activism one can make such demands. There have been a number of famous instances where such have led to improvements and changes.

Perhaps the commenter is indirectly pointing out that a relatively large block of US voters (many of whom are typically associated with the law and order crowd) have reason to push for changes to the current system.

Jails and prisons accommodate inmate religious beliefs in food, etc, so I'm pretty sure that's an example of running justice according to choice of religious texts.

>>Jails and prisons accommodate inmate religious beliefs in food, etc

Not universally. And, in some cases, there's an extortion racket for that as well: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jun/3/fifth-circui...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com