Navigating the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses when developing policies for government chaplains can be dizzying. The Washington State Department of Corrections found that out recently when trying to reach a settlement with an inmate who wanted the right to adhere to two religions at the same time. Tacoma News-Tribune reporter Ian Demsky wrote up a thorough and interesting description of the problem:
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.
Suss is taking six weeks off and he’s not sure what to do after that. He figures his days as a state chaplain are over. The state is attempting to protect inmates’ freedom of religion and Suss’ attempt to keep his religious convictions uncompromised may be futile:
What does it mean to belong to a particular faith or tradition? Can you just say, “OK, I’m Jewish now” (or Hindu, or Catholic, or Buddhist, or whatever), or must you be accepted into that faith through certain sacraments and rituals? Is it meaningful to claim you’re both a Catholic, believing in one triune God, and at the same time a pagan, espousing the existence of many gods and goddesses? Who should get to decide?
Demsky explains that prisoners who claimed multiple religions used to have to get permission from each religion that dual membership was even permissible. In December, the rules were changed to allow inmates to claim multiple religions without any barrier. The policy revision was the result of a lawsuit settlement with an inmate who claimed that the state was violating federal law by preventing him from worshiping both as a Seventh-day Adventist and a Native American practitioner:
Not long after, Suss said, an inmate at McNeil Island decided to become both Catholic and Asatru, a movement harkening back to the pre-Christian paganism of Europe and Scandinavia.
For the priest, this presented a dilemma.
“Common sense says you cannot be a pagan Christian,” he said. “As a state chaplain, I must endorse state policy. I have to be willing to endorse this inmate’s freedom to be both religions at the same time, but my own convictions being a Catholic priest don’t allow for a Catholic to be a pagan at the same time.”
When writing about church and state issues, any angle you take can heavily influence how the issue is understood by the reader. Demsky did a great job of handling the incentives prisoners might have to take advantage of the policy:
Carrell also is concerned that inmates will chose to be members of multiple religions - or even all religions - out of a desire to exploit the system, rather than from sincere conviction. For example, an inmate could profess to be Muslim to get a prayer rug to decorate his cell, or Jewish to have access to Kosher meals.
“I don’t know how somebody can be a pagan and a Catholic,” Carrell said. “That’s like being partly pregnant.”
Gary Friedman, who heads up a committee that advises the Corrections Department on religious matters, agrees. Other chaplains also have expressed concerns with the policy, he said.
“The policy change might seem like something minor to a lay person, but in prison, little things become big things,” said Friedman, who is Jewish and trained as a chaplain.
“How can they be sincere if they don’t follow the dictates of the faith they claim to have a sincere belief in?” Friedman asked. “How can they say they’re Jewish, knowing one can’t self-convert under Jewish law?”
He’s seen inmates convert to Judaism and then contact Jewish organizations seeking money.
Demsky goes to a lawyer with the Becket Fund, a Washington, D.C., law firm that defends religious expression, to get the perspective that freedom of religion is worth the risk.
The article quotes Suss saying that he could be sued for not catering to the pagan inmate who also claims Catholicism and also that it’s ridiculous that an inmate can be something in prison that he can’t be outside — but Demsky also explains how the new policy complies with current interpretations of the free exercise clause:
[Dick Morgan, assistant deputy secretary for the Corrections Department’s prisons division] pointed out that the department’s policy doesn’t require anyone to perform ecclesiastical duties that run contrary to the tenets of their religion. A Catholic priest, for example, would not have to give communion to an inmate who had not been baptized, thus violating Catholic tradition.
Suss’ dilemma, however, is that he is not only a Catholic priest, but also a state employee with nonreligious duties that might conflict with his religious beliefs.
There are many complex questions and kudos to Demsky for taking the time to explore multiple avenues and areas where consciences conflict. Too many times reporters covering these issues aggressively push an agenda rather than tell the story.
 | Posted at 1:59 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (29) |
February 5, 2008, at 7:40 am
I’ve been a serious volunteer chaplain, going to jail weekly for many years. In the 70’s, at a max unit in Massachusetts, I met a Catholic priest who said something memorable to me: namely, that he was there to “be Jesus” for those guys. I think Jesus was quite successful at dealing with duality, duplicity. And the real Jesus didn’t refuse to be Jesus out of concern that somebody might not get religion correctly right away.
I wish the reporter had grilled the priest a little harder about how he was letting inmate practices disrupt his own ministry. (When Peter got too curious, and asked about the path of somebody else, Jesus asked him: “What is that to thee? Follow thou me.” -John 21.)
Priests of any religion that are more concerned about their brand than about making a difference have missed the point, in my view. This priest sounds like he is really dedicated to his calling. But then, denomination is often the root of so many problems which would derail real ministry. Jesus was not a denominationalist.
My own approach eliminates all denominational issues. I teach a ‘nondenominational” Bible study which is largely focused on moral reasoning, as illustrated in the text. I’ve had Jews, Muslims, gays and others in class at length, with no problems. (Of course, I don’t have to answer to a religious authority, or to the press.) I may not be able to “be Jesus” in any practical sense, but I can see Jesus in these men. And they respond to that correct recognition of their true being. (‘The true light illuminates every man that comes into the world.’ -John 1:9).
~eric.
February 5, 2008, at 9:37 am
I have been following this issue closely at my own blog, and after reading a couple articles related to this case, I’m finding it hard to have much sympathy for Suss. If the state had tried to force him to give the Eucharist, or perform some other function that required you to be in good standing with the Catholic Church, it would be one thing. But reading between the lines on this article (and a follow-up editorial) it becomes clear this is about prisoners getting to “claim” their belief systems without prior permission, and being allowed to buy religious supplies for their claimed faith(s). Two things that any non-incarcerated person can do at any time without any problems.
If religious freedom means anything, it means the freedom to be heretical if you so choose. Which is why hundreds of “Catholic” splinter churches from the idealogical “left” and “right” practice openly and freely in America. It is why dozens of “Christo-Pagan” groups exist despite protests from Christians and Pagans that such a thing can’t exist. Religious traditionalists may not like that these things exist, but that is the price of freedom. While Suss and other dissenters may claim that such wild syncretism is flatly impossible and that they can’t be that “on the street”, in reality, thousands of Americans engage in dual faith claims, even when such claims may mark them as outsiders to their chosen faiths.
In prison, religion had been tightly regimented for years, there was a time that anything outside the Judeo-Christian mold would be completely unacceptable. But slowly, the courts have decided that even prisoners should have access to the same freedom of thought and religious expression as any other citizen, so long as that freedom doesn’t pose a genuine security risk. Claims of gaming the system to get more religious perks is a warning that comes with any new freedom granted prisoners. Will there be those who take advantage of this new right? Of course. But that possibility is hardly the most pressing security risk facing a prison warden.
Finally, this article should have dug a little deeper into Suss and the demographics of his prison system. Did you know that Suss has a history of complaints from Pagan prisoners? That he was charged with using his position to place covert and overt pressures on them? Not very ethical for someone who is supposed to be inhabiting his impartial “prison chaplain” role. Also, the article in question points out that Pagans outnumber Catholics in the Washington prison system (and Native American practitioners come very close). You would think that would mean hiring on some Pagan chaplains, but that hasn’t happened. Instead, a Catholic is overseeing the “rights” of Pagan inmates. No wonder he had a fit when the courts decided these “heathens” could decide to “bat for both teams”. Is anyone surprised that when a predominantly Christian chaplaincy heads up a inmate population with a large number of non-Christians that syncreticism, and claims of dual-adherence are going to emerge?
This story ties into a far deeper story of how non-Christian prisoners, and the clergy that wish to serve them, are treated by an overwhelmingly Christian chaplaincy (and prison administration). It is such a problem that one of the few Pagan chaplains to make headway into the prison system is giving testimony to the US Commission on Civil Rights this Friday on the subject of prisoner’s rights. The first time a Pagan has ever done so.
February 5, 2008, at 10:16 am
Can someone explain to me why chaplains are paid by the state? Is it a security measure or something? It seems that’s the issue that causes a lot of problems. Why isn’t the minister simply paid by his religious group with prison ministry seen as one of the regular duties he’s paid to do just like visiting sick members of flock is? I would think that, for example, a priest who is at the prison voluntarily (at least in the sense that he’s not paid by the prison) would be free to administer the sacraments according to the Catholic Church’s rules.
February 5, 2008, at 11:04 am
Clergy who are paid prison chaplains are also free to administer sacraments according to their church’s rules. No Catholic priest, for example, has been forced to administer a Eucharist against their will. The main complaint in this article is whether clergy can control claims of adherence, and whether they, in their context as state employees, will have to sell religious supplies to inmates claiming dual adherence. Is a Pagan inmate buying a cheap plastic crucifix (or rosary), most likely made by non-Christian hands in China (and certainly not sanctified by the Church), really forcing a Catholic priest into an ethical bind? Even then, a compromise was offered in which someone else could make the sale.
I have purchased items at Catholic gift shops many times, and I don’t think I imperiled anyone’s soul in the process.
February 5, 2008, at 11:22 am
I suspect that the problem is that some sort of thing is going on, which Catholic faith and tradition would consider a sacrilege.
For example, if one were using a Catholic statue of Mary as a statue of Freya or another Norse deity, or for some non-sacred purpose like getting off or trafficking in other goods (particularly if it were deliberately done as a taunt against the priest) it would indeed take the patience of a saint to deal with it.
Putting up with sacrilege, and visiting places where sacrilege occurs, are not generally considered spiritually fruitful by Christian tradition. Rather, we are advised to dust off our feet as testimony against such people, and never visit them again.
It should also be mentioned that Asatru is anecdotally linked with white supremacism. I’m not saying that Asatru adherents are necessarily racists, but one runs into a lot of racists who claim to be Asatru.
February 5, 2008, at 11:40 am
I liked what Eric Chaffee had to say.
Could some of those prisoners be Sufis? Hazrat Inayat Khan said:
February 5, 2008, at 11:42 am
I think the article was thorough, and while I appreciate the input of Jason, telling us more about Sass (that he tried to convert pagans) I think that he misses some points, and he’s making this an issue of religious freedom where none apparently exists (now, at least.)
Would it be right for a Christian to march into a Wiccan gathering and demand that they add prayers to Jesus to their rites? Should neopagans march into churches and demand that rituals for Odin be added to the liturgy? If these are ludicrious, then so is demanding priests, imams and rabbis change their religions into something their not, and be forced to participate in these new hybrids - which, on their own, have every right to exist, as Jason correctly notes with great passion.
While I strongly believe the inmates are right to demand that they be allowed to practice paganism or whatever other religion they desire, they have no right to demand that monotheistic clergy minister to them, participate in their rites, or overlook that they are not orthodox. If they call on these clergymen, they have to expect that they will not be met with open arms, but with correction, as the clergy will see it. Like it or not, Christians, Muslims and Jews don’t believe one can accept OTHER gods alongside the One God. No court decision will be changing that view.
This should be strictly an issue of access to OTHER faiths’ clergy, not the warped idea of forcing clergy to minister to those outside their own faiths, which clergy have every RIGHT to define as they see fit.
If the prison refuses to allow pagan priests (or ritual gear) into the facility to administer to Christo-Pagans or Native American worshippers or others, then we have another great news story, and I’d be fired up to write about that as an injustice. But forcing priests to provide sacramental materials for pagan rites? Um, no. That’s an injustice, too.
February 5, 2008, at 11:42 am
One could very easily substitute “Christianity” in that statement and it would be equally true. But instead of being flip, I will point out that one reason racist forms of Asatru flourish so readily in prisons is because prisons have been slow to allow Asatru clergy and chaplains easy access to prisoners. Without access to proper teachings, they fall prey to white supremacist groups who willingly mail out boatloads of racist garbage masquerading as Pagan religion. Mix that with the already prevalent gang mentality in prisons, and you have a volatile combination.
February 5, 2008, at 11:47 am
Except that isn’t happening. No Christian clergy member is being forced to minister to Christo-Pagans, nor is any Christian clergy member being forced to perform sacraments for those they feel unworthy of accepting them. No one is being “forced” to participate in any hybrid. This all comes down to buying supplies and being able to claim dual adherence without permission.
That would be an injustice. If were actually happening.
February 5, 2008, at 11:52 am
Asatru gets a bad rap for racism, but it has some basis in fact because some racist groups have adopted it in the past and warped its beliefs. The Asatru that I know have been very vocal against racism or any connection to it.
I think Jason inadvertantly backed what I was saying about clergy, and what the priest in the story was saying; that in prison, as outside, clergy have the role of correcting heretical and incorrect beliefs. Just as a Christian minister or priest would correct a pagan trying to be a Christian at the same time, the Asatru clergy would, presumably, repudiate racist views of inmates trying to adapt it to racist views.
What that situation would call out for is a Christo-Pagan priest, not a Catholic priest being asked to accept an innovation.
February 5, 2008, at 11:54 am
The chaplain is paid to be a nonsectarian chaplain capable of honoring the religious or belief traditions of every inmate and following the demands of his employer and the state. He is not paid to be Catholic.
If he is unable to carry out tasks that are the very essence of his job, there may be no way to accommodate his Catholic faith.
February 5, 2008, at 11:56 am
Let me clarify. He is paid to be Catholic when it comes to providing services for Catholic inmates. But the main part of his job is not to be Catholic, but to be a chaplain.
February 5, 2008, at 11:57 am
Jason wrote:
and from the article:
This is a real concern, and you echoed that it was part of the story.
February 5, 2008, at 12:02 pm
Forcing a Christian chaplain to minister to a “dual practicioner” of another, incompatable faith is exaclty the point here, and the minister/priests are being told they may not refuse to minister to such a person.
So yes, the chaplain here is being forced.
Question: Are there no Unitarian Universalist chaplains available in Washingotn state? They will minister to ANYONE.
February 5, 2008, at 12:09 pm
AY YI YI!
This is not the forum to discuss the First Amendment issues — but, rather, how well the media handle these issues.
Please discuss this article, not the theology behind it.
February 5, 2008, at 12:11 pm
Stephen, it may indeed be a “concern”, but it isn’t the same matter as being forced to perform a sacrament, or alter your liturgy to include Pagan gods. I think that considering your excerpt from the article, it is important to add this one:
In other words, Suss is rebelling against a hypothetical religious (non-sacramental) accommodation he most likely wouldn’t have to make. Which makes me wonder if his “leave of absence” is truly fueled by a religious ethical concern, or if he is simply angry that prisoners get to act like any free American when it comes to religion.
February 5, 2008, at 12:12 pm
Could you quote the relevant portion of the article that states that chaplains will be forced to minister to dual practitioners?
February 5, 2008, at 1:44 pm
Again, I ask this because I really don’t know much about the topic, but why does the state employ prison chaplains in the first place? When did this start (I assume it’s been done this way for a long time) and for what reasons?
I tried to do a quick google search to find out but most of what came up was actually in reference to this article.
It seems some like some type of system where various ministers of local religious groups are allowed to come into the prison to minister to their adherents, but are not paid by the prison for it, would resolve most of the conflicts here.
February 5, 2008, at 1:59 pm
Jason, it’s pretty clear that the allowance of “dual religions” conflicts with this particular chaplain’s beliefs and he will NOT be ministering to those people, and there is a rabbi in the article quoted as saying the same thing. This isn’t in one person’s head.
He’s not denying anyone their right to practice these faith mash-ups, as you keep implying. He is refusing to sell or provide any Christian items to pagans to (mis)use. Period. There is a belief on his part that he will be sued if he follows his conscience. That seems like a real concern, since he sees that as “ministering” to him.
The bottom line is that no minister worth his/her salt will be forced to accept as “Christian” those who worship other dieties, too. And no one should force them to.
Another question I need answered from the reporter: Why are chaplains selling religious items to prisoners to begin with? Can’t this stuff be provided by religious organizations on the outside, or in the prison store? That would seem to alievate much of this problem. The other issues will be resolved if the prisoners are allowed more diverse clergy.
February 5, 2008, at 3:18 pm
Pardon my armchair lawyering, but how does a priest refusing to sell sacramentals in specific circumstances violate someone’s freedom of religion?
Catholics, whether in prison or not, have no canonical right to sacramentals - only sacraments; and not having a sacramental doesn’t prevent a Catholic from practicing his religion. A free Catholic has no right to demand that a priest give him a sacramental. I don’t see why incarcerated Catholics should have the right to do so.
A set of rosary beads are a tool for counting prayers, but a prisoner can pray the rosary on his fingers or the bars on his cell or anything that helps him count to 10. Where is the prisoner who was not allowed to pray the rosary or not allowed to meditate on Christ’s passion? A priest who refuses to give a prisoner a rosary or crucifix because he has reason to believe they’ll be used sacrilegiously doesn’t prevent the prisoner from praying or living his Catholic faith.
The religious freedom of prisoners isn’t the only side to this story, the religious freedom of ministers should also be covered. Aside from rules guarding the safety and security of the prison, should the state have any say in how prison ministers practice their religion?
February 5, 2008, at 6:01 pm
From the article
There are reasons why a priest would not give communion to a baptized Catholic - would this be a problem with the state if the priest refused to give communion to a pagan/baptized catholic?
A paragraph soon follows the one cited above
Is communiona a “religious article”? The article doesn’t say.
What is a “chaplain” exactly? If religion is not the essence of it then the job sounds more like a counselor or social worker. That would be a useful thing for the reporter to expound upon.
Eric:
Your solution sounds fine, but does not compute for a chaplain of a religion that is confession, sacramental and liturgical. By the way, a Catholic priest is considered an “alter Christus”, another Christ. I don’t think you fully understood what the Catholic priest was telling you about himself.
February 5, 2008, at 6:06 pm
Oops. In the last section I meant “confessional” and not “confession”.
February 5, 2008, at 6:25 pm
Something the article was vague about is the question of whether self-identification is necessarily sufficient. For instance, if a prisoner calls himself Catholic, but Fr. Suss knows that the prisoner hasn’t been baptized validly, is he required to recognize that inmate’s conversion? In other words, is the inmate’s status as a practicing whatever up to him alone, or does the established church (if such there be) have any say?
February 6, 2008, at 2:25 am
I can answer Stephen’s question:
He isn’t being asked to sell anything. Chaplains don’t sell items in the Washington State correctional facilities (I don’t know about elsewhere but I doubt it).
Washington State has an official list of allowed items, including size and amounts, for religious items for every represented religion (well, represented in their forms). This list is created by the Department of Corrections with input from leaders of religious communities represented.
In Washington State, Pete “Pathfinder” Davis of the Aquarian Tabernacle Church, is one individual that I know had a fair amount of input in the items on the list for Wiccans. Pete has a long relationship with the correctional department and members of the ATC sponsor Wiccan groups in at least one institution in the state.
Inmates can, with their own money or through family, orders items in the allowed amounts and sizes from the list. They either use their own money (from work accounts) or have family pay for them. The items, in order to reach the inmates, are shipped to Chaplain’s office at the facility. The Chaplain’s office then distributes the items to inmates (or not, in a number of cases). This also applies to books.
As I mentioned on Jason’s blog, I am a former sponsor for the Wiccan group at McNeil Island CC, which is where Suss has been working. I took this over from a friend who had done it for a couple of years after I was assisting him and he was called up to duty in Iraq. I did it for a bit over a year before my schedule no longer allowed for the multi-hour trips to and fro (McNeil Island is, surprisingly, on an island in Puget Sound and only accessible from one location by a private ferry run by the Department of Corrections).
While I assisted my friend, Dan, and while I sponsored the group, the men continually complained about the chaplain’s office. Now, inmates pretty much complain about everything so a lot of this was low level noise but there were consistent themes. These ran from items being denied to them, even though they were on the list, because someone in the chaplain’s office decided they didn’t match the list exactly (you could have two 6 oz things of incense but not one 8 oz, to use a hypothetical example). Basically, the list, which was originally meant to help inmates get religious items, became a mechanism to restrict what they could get at the whim of the office. Other than that, I had a number of complaints about items, such as personal books of shadows, being confiscated and not returned for months (or sometimes ever) during transfers from other facilities. I had reports of disparaging remarks from Suss about pagans and paganism, said within earshot of inmates to third parties. You can only hear the bitching about the same sort of thing for so long from different people in different situations before you wonder.
None of this qualifies as anything really actionable (and I couldn’t act on it) because, as long as the chaplains are not violating any official rules, they have pretty absolute authority when it comes to religion and the inmates. The list mentioned so prominently in the article and religious items is one of the few very visible checks on their authority.
Then there is the Asatru problem. I say “problem” because the Asatru group, for reasons unknown to me, at McNeil Island is not recognized by the administration. I assume it is because of a lack of a sponsor. Officially, groups have to have an outside (non-inmate) sponsor in order to meet and that person needs to attend meetings. I used to be a Godman in the Ring of Troth but I gathered that the Asatru in Washington State weren’t interested in working in that prison (or unable). The Asatru inmates were only able to do a blot when the Wiccans were doing a Sabbat, which forced both to be at opposite ends of the same open area (which was dominated by a giant cross) and performing rituals at the same time. Kind of obnoxious.
So, a lot of this isn’t hypothetical since I’ve been a sponsor in Suss’ prison.
February 6, 2008, at 3:43 pm
When a chaplain “ministers” to someone who is of another faith, he is not performing his own sacraments, but is listening, discussing their faith journey, and helping obtain access to the tools or personnel of that faith. Should he have a religion in common, he may serve sacraments, but chaplaincy is different from priesthood in a specific religion. It is conceivable that one might not be able to serve both roles, depending upon the exclusivity of his religious practice and attitudes towards assisting people of other religions including those he does not respect.
So a Jewish chaplain may help Muslims have access to hallal meat, or prayer rugs and a Christian may be able to bring in a rabbi for someone who wishes to profess Judaism when he knows that self-conversion is not permitted. But the priest is not being asked to serve communion to free Catholics or to confess dual Native-American/Roman Catholic practitioners.
February 6, 2008, at 8:12 pm
I guess the Catholic priest is tired of the mushiness of the whole thing and the way the inmates play the system. What’s wrong with him quitting? The whole “chaplain” thing has changed beyond all reckoning.
February 7, 2008, at 12:06 am
Julia,
I suggest that you actually read what I wrote since nothing there is about “mushiness” from Suss.
February 10, 2008, at 10:20 am
Al, thanks for the insights. I wish the reporter had gone into that kind of detail, but I bet he didn’t speak with you, or with the prisoners (if that’s even possible.)
However, what you’ve said does nothing to allay Suss’ fear that he will be asked to dispense religious items other than of his own faith, if he had a desire not to be forced to do so. In fact, it backs up his claims and seems to show that chaplains are being put into the position of providing worship aids to prisoners, regardless of the personal beliefs of the chaplain and even if he suspects the reasons for acquiring them are not religious ones.
As I said, I wonder why a “non-aligned” person isn’t dispensing these items so it’s not an issue, and I’d be asking why this hasn’t been done before.
As to Karen’s sugestion that clergy of each faith are helping others of other faiths, it’s a great ideal and I’m certain it happens, but there are limits, and Julia’s point about “mushiness” is, I believe, pointing to those limits. Should a priest, even one acting as a chaplain, be forced to acquire a prayer rug for a Catholic prisoner he’s ministering to, so he can pray Muslim prayers on it - as well as Catholic ones?
Clearly the courts believe a prisoner has the right to put a crucifix on his pagan altar if he wishes. The notion of “approved” religions is troubling, although I thins we need to understand the right of prison wardens to allow/disallow any items in cells. But Al’s comments imply it may simply be a question of the dispensers of these items making value judgements based on faith, not rights. A classic clash that would have made a better story if highlighted more sharply.
As a side note, these hybrid religions in prison - if they are indeed genuine and not simply ways to get a “pretty rug” in one’s cell - would be a fascinating story, if there is some way to interview the prisoners.
February 10, 2008, at 3:58 pm
First off to reply to the comment that alot of rascists are Asatru, actually I believe the minority of racists claim to be Asatru(I am not in a postion to state on their internal faith but no one who does what they do can legitimately claim they are following the Gods or our ways). The majority of us cant stand them. They took our beliefs in our Gods and added a terrible political ideology.The majortiy of racists I believe you will find are proclaimed Christians or a mishmash of beliefs. Just as they are not Asatru neither are they Christian by their actions this is apparent. It gives any one who practices a religion especially one where it is already subject to some discrimination, a bad name.
The Priest should be free to do as he chooses he came as a volunteer, if he is pressuring people to convert to his religion and using his power over them to gain influence then he has abused his position, but if he does not want to be forced to administer religious rites to some one then he shouldnt. His activities as relating to pressuring individuals should be looked into though. The rights of the Priest and the inmate should be observed, I believe Unitarians would be willing to adminster to him as would prehaps Interfaith groups.
There are alot of good resources on the web that show Asatru is not racist.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wodensharrow/hah.html
http://www.vinland.org/heathen/mt/race.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm
These are just some examples