6 ms·

Actually, in the United States, you can. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act https://en

Actually, in the United States, you can. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

jughtuyi 11y ago
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.'
- apsec112 11y ago
  This applies to prisons because they are part of the government, and are therefore state actors. It doesn't apply to private citizens.
- ifdefdebug 11y ago
  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.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    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.
  - tyingq 11y ago
    >>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.
MichaelGG 11y ago
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.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  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.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    I think the parent poster's point was that ideological freedoms should not be limited to just religions.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    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.
    - Sacho 11y ago
      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).

jughtuyi 11y ago

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.'

apsec112 11y ago
This applies to prisons because they are part of the government, and are therefore state actors. It doesn't apply to private citizens.
ifdefdebug 11y ago
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.
- icebraining 11y ago
  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.
- tyingq 11y ago
  >>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.

MichaelGG 11y ago

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.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
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.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  I think the parent poster's point was that ideological freedoms should not be limited to just religions.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  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.
  - Sacho 11y ago
    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).