California's "Five Faiths" Prison Policy

[Nekowolf]

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2010/02/wiccan-chaplain-battles-for-st.php

In California, there is a court case by a Patrick McCollum against their prison system's "five faiths" policy that hires chaplains only for the following religious groups: Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American. The case in hand is that this is a discrimination to other religions.

And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the Californian prison system in keeping this policy established, saying he does not have a standing for this case.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/01/37004.htm

Without reflecting on the merits of the Wiccan religion, the federal appeals court in San Francisco dashed Patrick McCollum's First Amendment, free-exercise and equal-protection claims against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Rather the court concluded that the volunteer chaplain lacked standing because he "attempts to transform his employment discrimination action into an effort to vindicate the inmates' First Amendment rights."

I think this is absolutely a form of discrimination! You allow only these five faiths, but no others? How is that NOT discriminatory? These guys can get a chaplain, but the others guys can't because they're not part of those five faiths?

Now I'm sure some will think there shouldn't be chaplains of any kind in the prison system, but y'know, that's not the point. The point here is that there are groups who are being excluded by policy.

[M.M.A.A.]

i agree that this is SOME kind of discrimination, as NOT being allowed to have a chaplain in prison is something, well, outrageous, thank god there are for muslims. Not only outrageous to prisoners, ofcourse, to their families too, which can cause conflicts between countries as well. :alarm:

[CmarNYC]

I think if they provide support for one religion, they should provide support for all. Of course, that could quickly become pretty impractical. Also their choice of religions is interesting - no Buddism, Tao, Hinduism, Shinto, plus many others?? How narrow.

And what about Atheists? Don't we get anything?

[rcranger9]

Sorry Atheists, your on your own. :p Just kidding. But seriously this is messed up and backwards in a society where there isn't supposed to be discrimination.

[Robodl95]

Nowhere in the article does it say that no one other than those 5 can't have chaplains. I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I would agree that it's discrimination if they had denied multiple religions their rights before but this McCollum guy doesn't sound the best. It's hard to get all the facts from the article but I think they probably rejected him on just terms. It says right in the article that they were rejected because of not following procedure.

And what about Atheists? Don't we get anything?
I imagine that an atheist religious service would be quite boring....

[Nekowolf]

"Nowhere in the article does it say that no one other than those 5 can't have chaplains."

The policy in question is that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will not hire paid chaplains other than those of the stated five faiths. Any other is excluded, and while may be present for prisoners, is still unpaid; it's basically volunteer work. The fact they hire only those of those five faiths is discriminatory.

[M.M.A.A.]

maybe because those religions have a connection with believing in God while others are not?

[Robodl95]

"Nowhere in the article does it say that no one other than those 5 can't have chaplains."

The policy in question is that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will not hire paid chaplains other than those of the stated five faiths. Any other is excluded, and while may be present for prisoners, is still unpaid; it's basically volunteer work. The fact they hire only those of those five faiths is discriminatory.
Oh, well in that case .... The Californian prison system has about 187,000 inmates (figures vary by a couple thousand), in the article it's said that there's about 500 wiccans. Wiccans constitute .28% of the entire states prison system! The religions they support are the most common (though I'm questioning Native American, without having accurate statistics of religious groups in prison it's impossible to know, maybe there is a sizeable population of Hindus, in that case it might be discrimination). I'm not saying that they shouldn't care about minority religions but the number is so small that I don't think it constitutes a payed employee (remember that there are 33 prisons in California throughout the state, there might only be a handful of that minority at a certain prison).

[Mistermook]

Most importantly, the judges were absolutely correct in dropping the case because of lack of standing. The chaplain hasn't been discriminated against, especially since he admits he wasn't looking for employment. Since his only complaint is that the state is discriminating against other people, who aren't filing suits apparently, he lacks justification in bringing the case before the court. It's like trying to bring a case against someone for being racist toward your neighbor. It doesn't mean the person isn't being racist, it means that the neighbor should be the one bringing the complaint.

He could have tried to find an inmate who was being denied religious equality and brought the case on their behalf. Or he could have found some jobless Wiccan warlock or whatever they're called and had them apply until they could prove a pattern of the state denying employment based off of religion, but the guy not wanting a job not getting the job to preach to the people who haven't complained about his absence? Yeah, it's a stretch.

[whiterider]

Damnit, Mistermook beat me to it. But yes - the ruling doesn't say that wiccan prisoners (or others) aren't entitled to have chaplains; just that a random outsider can't claim that right on their behalf. If an inmate took this issue to court, they would receive a much more thorough examination of the issues, although of course it's not possible to guess what the judgement would be.

As far as the actual policy goes, it's discriminatory, yes. However, I would imagine that the prison system has limited means: they have to balance the benefits - which will bring most benefit, paying for chaplains for a very small minority of inmates, or paying for facilities and rehab programs which will benefit vastly greater numbers of inmates? I would honestly only be concerned if they also prevent volunteer chaplains from other faiths from working in the prisons, in accordance with the various procedural and training requirements.

[wickedblue]

To further expand on what whiterider said, there's nothing that shows the prison denies the prisoners access to clergy for particular faith. The preacher might have a cause for discrimination in employment (which would probably be weak based on what little we know) which he is free to pursue but he can't claim religious discrimination on behalf of the prisoners who haven't filed a complaint. If they do, then the prison refusing to hire him might help to establish the case.

My initial reaction when I read this earlier was that it did sound discriminatory from what was stated in the OP but after reading through the page linked and thinking on it, I just can't see any discriminatory practice here. Like whiterider said, if they were absolutely preventing prisoners of other faith to see their clergy, that would be discriminatory. They aren't doing that, they are just not employing one for every single religion; which makes sense. There's not enough money to do that.

Personally, I don't think they should have any of them on their payroll and I didn't even realize that was standard. I always assumed those chaplains were there voluntarily and I don't think I can support tax dollars being used in that way, especially in a bust economy. But that's probably not a topic for debate in this thread.

[CmarNYC]

I imagine that an atheist religious service would be quite boring....

No intent to offend anyone but I can't help laughing at that considering how boring I thought church was as a child. :D

I get that religious leaders are free to volunteer their time for other religions so no one is being prevented from worshiping the way they want, but the fact that the prison will PAY for the 'big five' and not the others is discriminatory. Yes, paying for someone for every religion that even one prisoner is a member of would cost a fortune and is completely impractical. I'm with the post above, why aren't all religious services, including the five, on an unpaid, volunteer basis?

[Robodl95]

I get that religious leaders are free to volunteer their time for other religions so no one is being prevented from worshiping the way they want, but the fact that the prison will PAY for the 'big five' and not the others is discriminatory. Yes, paying for someone for every religion that even one prisoner is a member of would cost a fortune and is completely impractical. I'm with the post above, why aren't all religious services, including the five, on an unpaid, volunteer basis?
Probably because they're the largest (still questioning native american though...) and so they would require more time.

[Mistermook]

The Native American thing might be required by law for reasons that have very little to do with need and more to do with the Native American lobby, or even peculiarities of treaties made in the 19th century.

[CmarNYC]

Probably because they're the largest (still questioning native american though...) and so they would require more time.

That's the obvious reason for paying for those particular religions. Doesn't answer questions of why the taxpayer is paying for religious guidance for prisoners, whether it's the obligation of the prison system to pay to provide religious services and (presumably) counseling for prisoners as a necessity, and if so why that's not being done for all prisoners regardless of faith.

And that last is kind of rhetorical because of course it would cost too much. Being financially necessary doesn't keep it from being discriminatory, though.

[Mistermook]

I found it:

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
"It was enacted to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cultural practices of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians. These rights include, but are not limited to, access of sacred sites, freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rights and use and possession of objects considered sacred. The Act required policies of all governmental agencies to eliminate interference with the free exercise of Native religion, based on the First Amendment, and to accommodate access to and use of religious sites to the extent that the use is practicable and is not inconsistent with an agency's essential functions." - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act)

+

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act holds the federal government responsible for accepting additional obligations to protect religious exercise. In O'Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons it was found that the RFRA governs the actions of federal officers and agencies and that the RFRA can be applied to "internal operations of the federal government." - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act) [Bold due to my actions]

RFRA has been struck down for the states, but is upheld and binding for Federal application, but California passed a state law which has similarities, like many other states. That suggests that there's a law compelling the state to specifically recognize Native Americans because Native Americans have specifically been announced by the law as having their religious rights hampered. I've already done a lot more homework on this than I care to, not caring an awful lot what happens to a bunch of prisoners' support groups to engage in superstition, but it seems fairly clear to me that this is what's going on for the people wondering how Native Americans got on the list and not some other religion.

The government didn't want to be sued by tribes that lost their religious sites to national parks, so they wrote a law promising access to national parks for tribes and fluffed it up with some stuff that was intended to promote religious tolerance in prisons because they had complaints. No one followed those laws and the laws got snipped away at with court decisions, so they wrote ANOTHER law to keep prison wardens from being asshats. This one had more teeth, and conservatives are fighting a losing battle, so it was more successful until Texas got involved and struck down the whole thing except for the federal government. So the states all had to write their own versions of it, and I'm not tracking them all down, but the intent seems to be to follow the RFRA mostly and that means the states are singling out Native Americans if they're following the spirit of the legislation. Which it wouldn't surprise me if they were, even if I haven't specifically seen the Californian legislation.