| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
They cannot bend to prison practice (although actually there are provisions in Islamic law that would allow them to adapt). Rather, the prison has to bend to them. This is all part of the larger stealth jihad initiative in the U.S., about which I am writing a book: the attempt to get the U.S. to become accustomed to accommodating Sharia -- a road that will lead either to the end of that accommodation, or else to America's becoming a Sharia state. But there is no stopping point within Sharia itself beyond which the demands will not advance.
"Wyo. Lawsuit Alleges Prison Mealtime Violates Muslim Inmates' Freedom of Religion," from AP (thanks to all who sent this in):
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Thursday claiming that a Wyoming State Penitentiary policy restricting prisoners' mealtimes violates the constitutional rights of two Muslim inmates.The ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of Joseph Miller and Hurie Purdiman Jr., two inmates serving time at the penitentiary in Rawlins.
At issue is an alleged "20-minute rule" requiring inmates to eat their meals within 20 minutes after the food is delivered to a cell or common dining area, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit seeks for the inmates to be exempted from the rule because it forces them to choose between eating and practicing their religion.
Miller and Purdiman claim that meals have arrived at the same time of day that they're practicing prayers according to their Muslim faith. On other occasions, meals arrived during a period of religious fasting and then were confiscated before the fast ended at sunset.
"If someone has started their prayer, unless they're willing to interrupt their prayer and leave at that moment, they forgo their meal because (the guards) won't go back and open their cell doors," said Jennifer Horvath, staff attorney for Wyoming Chapter of the ACLU. "It's not unreasonable to ask for some extra time to finish their meals. They have a right to practice their religion, and the prison has been treating it as a privilege."...
Posted by Robert at April 4, 2008 12:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Awesome! There's a solution to make prison less attractive for Mohammedans!
This reminds me of a case in CA I heard of some years ago about inmates inventing their own religion that required them to eat chateau breyant every day. Initially, I thought this might have been about the food itself not being halal.
Posted by: Infidel Pride![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 4, 2008 12:51 AM
Thank you for writing that book. I hope you plan on identifying specific examples in specific places (e.g. public school that changed it's art program to accommodate the Muslim students) and make it clear that in the history of our country, no religious group has imposed such demands on our society. The footbasins in the airports is ludicrous. The thing about stopping work and school for their prayers is not true...they do not have to do that. Why should we have to listen to Muslims call out from minerets in Arabic to kill us. There is absolutely no reason to have Muslim prayer rooms in public schools. Can you imagine if Catholics demanded a chapel, a priest for daily mass, confessionals?
I'd also like to see a chapter on how the ACLU is vigilent against Christians but gives a free pass to Muslims and I would like to know why.
And I would like to see how Muslims are trying to use the Bill of Rights to implement Sharia.
Posted by: Abby at April 4, 2008 3:54 AM
And I would be interested in seeing how much taxpayer $ has been spent on making these accomodations. And what accomodations have been made on government property for Muslims, and also on the same property were accomodations made for people of other faiths? My guess is no. So why are we doing this?
Posted by: Abby at April 4, 2008 3:57 AM
No religion should be an excuse for any demands on a public place, it's a private choice.
Keep religion in your home, nowhere else.
Posted by: Abu_Lahab at April 4, 2008 4:55 AM
This is happening . . . in Wyoming? Holy sh*t, Batman.
The way things are heading Mr. Spencer, you're going to have to write a 51 chapter tome on the stealth jihad, one for each state, plus a rather large chapter on Washongton, D.C.
Posted by: Rick at April 4, 2008 6:20 AM
I usually agree with Mr. Spencer, but not on this one. If a Jew in prison was fasting for Yom Kippur, I think it would be quite reasonable to serve him a meal when the fast ended at sundown.
As to regular daily meals overlapping with prayer time: just pick up their used trays/dishes at the next meal service, and provide only hand-food or plastic utensils so their are no potential weapons left past meal time.
A little common sense does not equate to dhimmitude in this case.
Posted by: Dave at April 4, 2008 7:17 AM
Why does the ACLU always jump to defend muslims? But no other group?
Islam is the only religion that seems to make it's followers MORE likely to end up in prison.
Maybe the ACLU wants to defend this issue since the prison population has so many muslims? And the muslim population is growing larger all the time.
I don't believe the prisons should make accomodations. When you go to prison your rights are restricted. That IS the point.
at April 4, 2008 8:25 AM
Dave said: As to regular daily meals overlapping with prayer time: just pick up their used trays/dishes at the next meal service, and provide only hand-food or plastic utensils so their are no potential weapons left past meal time.
Thin end of the wedge, Dave. It starts with a little and ends with segregated cells for muslim population. They get no special treatment, end of story.
at April 4, 2008 8:27 AM
And Dave, if a Jew was in prison, he most likely already wasn't following his religion. If a muslim is in prison, he was following it more ferverntly.
Posted by: Borg at April 4, 2008 8:27 AM
The principle of American constitutional law that has been applied n cases where, it is claimed, the free exercise of religion has been infringed, is that of "reasonable accommodation." And in the case law, what is "reasonable accommodation" in turn, requires an analysis of the state interest involved. The smooth functioning of prisons, and the administrative headache if such a claim were to stand, so that "20 minutes" would have to be lengthened, and if lengthened, then no doubt it would have to be lengthened for all prisoners, or if not, a great many prisoners might - and this is a worry -- start to claim that they, too, were Muslims, and might even decide to convert, since it takes nothing but a phrase, in order to obtain such a benefit, and then, having done so lightheartedly, find that "you know, there really is something to this Islam." It's a very dangerous thing to give in on
That is the case law. A few years ago there was an attempt to deal with this situation by statute, the so-called RULIPA (which google), which tries to accommodate religion in such areas as land use and institutional -- including prison -- practices. How this case might be decided under RULIPA, how RULIPA relates to the prior case law or might if the case came to the Court (and here one must put one's faith in the common sense of the Court, but a Court whose members are no more acquianted with Islam than are most of our leaders).
Of course, this all begs the question: is Islam a religion in the sense in which the Framers understood that word, and as we today in the West understand that word? It is much more than a religion. It is a politics. It is a geopolitics. It is a program for, and justification of, world conquest for Islam and for Muslims. That can be found, quite easily, in the texts. Those who keep refusing to examine those texts, or examining the totalitrian nature of Islam, with its system of Total Regulation, and its justification for the mistreatment of all Unbelievers, or Infidels, needs to be understood by those in Congress who pass such a statute as RULIPA, and by judges, including of course those on the Supreme Court.
Islam presents an unprecedented challenge, both to American jurisprudence, and to the American -- and all Western states, and societies. A challenge and, if rightly understood, a danger that will not disappear, because it is based on texts that are regarded as uncreated and immutable, and the literal word of God, and every Muslim is, or is supposed to be, a literalist, and those who are not, nonetheless by their continued silence on the true nature of Islam, and their truthful recognition or admission of the problem, are only encouraging unwariness on the part of naive Infidels, and so, themselves, are participating, even if they would not see it that way, in the Jihad whose instruments include Da'wa, and also a world-wide propaganda campaign of steady misinformation. So far, that propaganda campaign has been working, for it appeals, in many ways, to all kinds of fashionable tendencies -- the deep unexamined belief in the wonders of "diversity," the deep Family-0f-Man sentimentalism that insists "all people are the same the whole world over" and its bomfoggish corollary, "all religions mean the same thing" or "we all worship the same God."
If examined with care, by the well-prepared, all of this crumbles into dust. But who, nowadays, is used to examining anything? And how many, nowadays, can be included in the list of the "well-prepared"?
Posted by: Hugh at April 4, 2008 9:26 AM
Islam violates our constitutional rights of personal choice, equality, and human rights. This makes it a political force, and unconstitutional, but NOT a personal religion.
Therefore, outlaw 'politicial' Islam as unconstitutional. If practicers of Islam want to do so in their privacy they may do so, but they may not be allowed to practice it publicly as a political force. Practicers of Islam are given a choice, under their constitutional rights, either to practice 'religion' in private or not practice it, as they choose, but they may not exert political force on the prison correctional system.
Prison is NOT a private place, it is a public place criminals must attend for correction. Therefore, prison is not a place where private choices are allowed while they are being corrected of their criminal behavior. Their constitutional rights are NOT being violated while they pray privately, but they are not be empowered by those same constitutional rights to demand prayer publicly. This case for special Islamic prayer time in prison, by ACLU or anybody, should be thrown out of court. Religion has nothing to do with it, it is about political force.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 4, 2008 9:36 AM
Their religion also calls for them to murder people of other faiths. Shall we allow them to practice THAT, as well???
Posted by: Lori B. at April 4, 2008 9:58 AM
So they don't eat. What's the big deal? I mean if they were practicing their religion, how did they get in prison?
Oh, yeah. I forgot that jihad thing.
Posted by: tanstaafl at April 4, 2008 10:07 AM
The ACLU's motto: "actively siding with the enemy since 1915".
Posted by: johnb at April 4, 2008 10:20 AM
Their religion also calls for them to murder people of other faiths. Shall we allow them to practice THAT, as well???
Posted by: Lori B.
Good point, Lori. Islam with its murder for apostasy, belief, sexual orientation, adultery, all murder for non-violent behaviors, is unlike any other religion in the world. It is more like a totalitarian Cult rather than religious belief. It is surprising that the American Civil Liberties Union would support the 'rights' of a cult belief system, especially in a correctional prison system. On what constitutional grounds can they base such a defense of cult behaviors, including the demands for special prayer privileges?
Like Hugh said above, Islam poses an unprecedented demand on our free society, and nothing envisioned by our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. An amendment to the Bill of Rights may be in order to stop 'frivolous' law suits such as this by the ACLU. To demand special treatment for religio-cultists in a prison setting is beyond absurd.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 4, 2008 10:36 AM
I agree with the ACLU [forbid] as for as this statement….
“Asking for extra time to finish a meal is not unreasonable.”
As it applies to Restaurants it is not, as it applies to Prisons, YES IT IS UNREASONABLE!
Being sentenced to prisons means you are to be restrained of personal liberty.
Less and until Webster re-defines what prison is, we will go by the original and already agreed upon definition thank you.
at April 4, 2008 11:03 AM
Islam is a political system cloaked in a religion.
Posted by: the poetess at April 4, 2008 11:05 AM
"You will be seriously inconvenienced!" Another very good reason for staying out of prison. How do you do that? You obey the law of the land.
Posted by: DaninVan at April 4, 2008 11:29 AM
Abby said
And I would like to see how Muslims are trying to use the Bill of Rights to implement Sharia.
And I would like to know how far down the road to implementing sharia they could take us within the confines (thank G*d) of existing Constitutional law. If 2/3 of Congress votes to replace our non-sharia-compliant Constitution with sharia, could it happen, even theoretically?
Posted by: special_guest at April 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Ok, so when are they going to argue that prison itself violates their religion?
In any case, if islam is so important to these pious muslims, why are none of them demanding to be punished according to Sharia law?
Posted by: Celsius at April 4, 2008 12:48 PM
God has his angels and the devil has the ACLU.
Posted by: Hadassah at April 4, 2008 2:14 PM
Celsius...great points. Like the way you think.
"Warden, I must be escorted to the local IHOP for breakfast each morning, or you are violating my religion"
Posted by: No More Ham, Ed at April 4, 2008 2:34 PM
The crux of the entire matter is that being a muslim evokes all sorts of privileges and Inmates just LOVE privileges. It would be worth converting for wouldn't it.
Posted by: Armoured Passionfruit at April 4, 2008 2:42 PM
So why isn't the ACLU suing the Indianapolis airport for violating the sacred church/state doctrine?
Oh yea, no Christians or Jews involved.
Since both these guys have non muslim names (not even new muslim names) I'm guessing they converted after checking in. And I would guess that they more than likely will quit practicing their new religion once the get released. Even the semi-devout converts name themselves some variation of abdullah mohammed or some such.
Posted by: walterc at April 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Another outrage from the ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union). Our nation has three coequal branches of government, judges are not superior to legislators or executives, though for years now many people think that the judicial branch has jurisdiction over every facet of american life.
at April 4, 2008 9:30 PM
The perfect con... for the love of Allah.
Ok, so when are they going to argue that prison itself violates their religion?Posted by: Celsius
In any case, if islam is so important to these pious muslims, why are none of them demanding to be punished according to Sharia law?
I'm surprised the ACLU hadn't thought of it yet. Why not demand that Muslim prisoners be released for reasons of religion? After all, if they didn't break any 'Islamic laws', as revealed by their perfect man in his war codex of Allah, then how could they in good conscience remain in prison? Surely it violates their 'religious freedoms'. What's that you say, about 'separation of mosque and state' and freedom of belief per the Second Amendment? He he, why stop at the absurd, when ACLU can really outdo itself and go over the top with a perfect con.
For the love of... let the slaves of Allah go!
/sarc
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at April 4, 2008 9:39 PM
You're in prison - you have no rights - get over yourself. You eat when the lunch bell rings, and you sleep when the lights go out. Get it!
Babies!
Posted by: champ at April 4, 2008 10:15 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)