Last February we looked at an intriguing First Amendment story in the Tacoma News Tribune. Reporter Ian Demsky looked at the fallout from a Washington State Department of Corrections settlement decision that gives inmates the right to adhere to two religions at the same time. One priest in particular took a voluntary leave of absence because he couldn’t support the state decision.
At the time, I praised the story as a thorough and interesting description of the problems posed by the decision. Some readers felt the story didn’t dig deep enough. I’m out in the Pacific Northwest right now and noticed that Demsky revisited the issue this week on the occasion of the Rev. Tom Suss’ last official day.
For more than 15 years, he served inmates of all faiths as prison chaplain. But the 63-year-old Catholic priest chose to retire a year and a half early rather than work with a troubled heart.
He’s leaving because he disagrees with new rules that allow state inmates to simultaneously chose multiple religious affiliations with the flick of a pen.
The most recent figures available show that 39 inmates at McNeil had designated multiple religions as of Feb. 21, and officials say that number has gone up since. The combinations include Protestant/Catholic, Jewish Orthodox/Seventh-day Adventist, Buddhist/Protestant/Sikh, Asatru/Catholic.
The contradictions were too much for Suss.
“I’m not a martyr,” Suss said in a recent interview. “There’s no hidden message here. I met my Waterloo. I had no other choice. I could not accept a pagan/Catholic.”
The article quotes the prison superintendent saying that Suss’ departure will be a loss and that he had been a very good chaplain for all faiths. When we first discussed the article, reader Jason Pitzl-Waters said that Suss hadn’t been a good chaplain to all religions. None of that is discussed in this story. Another complaint about the first story was that it didn’t make clear that the new rules wouldn’t compel Suss to commune anyone who claimed a religion in addition to Catholicism. This article does. It also covers new ground, showing that Suss is more upset that the greater religious community didn’t challenge the rules as much as he did. That’s a great angle to include in a story. Here Demsky includes the heart of Suss’ complaint:
At the heart of Suss’ quandary is whether an inmate should be able to simply choose a religion or whether one must be accepted by a community of faith.
Anyone not incarcerated is free to go down to the local Catholic shop and buy a rosary or a Bible, Suss said. That person can go to another shop and purchase amulets or crystals held sacred by pagans. But that doesn’t make one a member of either group. To be accepted into a faith, one must go through rituals and be welcomed by the community, he feels.
“Only the membership process, as authorized by the legitimate tradition, can say whether someone’s of that religion,” Suss said… .
“God can’t make a square circle,” Suss said. “How do we think we can create a contradiction of terms and say it’s OK? The DOC and the federal government don’t have that authority.”
Earlier in the story, Demsky mentions that some people see no contradiction in being part of multiple religions. But it would be nice to get a direct response to Suss’ claim. Still, the story is about Suss and his last day more than the larger issue. Considering that, the arguments and tensions are fleshed out well.
 | Posted at 1:33 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (27) |
May 15, 2008, at 2:08 pm
“The combinations include Protestant/Catholic”
Ah… obviously a Branch Theory Anglican
Okay, snark off. Asatru/Catholic? Sorry, way to annoy two pantheons there, buddy.
“Buddhist/Protestant/Sikh” - confused or seeker? You decide.
I’m only surprised no-one has yet declared himself to be Druidic, and demand to be allowed out to cut mistletoe with a golden sickle as part of his religious duties.
May 15, 2008, at 2:40 pm
I’m still waiting for a good in-depth look at this entire situation. It would make a great magazine article. Multi-religious adherence, Pagans, Christians, prison, special legislation, and chaplaincy, what more could you want?
May 15, 2008, at 3:50 pm
That’s a badly worded statement since some religions allow people to choose to align themselves and some do not. The real question is not that but how to handle someone who claims to be a member of a religion where acceptance by the community is considered necessary.
See, for example, That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Jew and a Passionate Buddhist by Sylvia Boorstein.
May 15, 2008, at 4:14 pm
The story notes (waaay down near the bottom):
Without these 15 words, the story paints Suss as a frustrated bigot who simply wants to disallow the prisoners from choosing their own religious paths.
With these words, it exposes these prisoners’ agenda of gaming the system and perhaps getting a laugh while doing it.
The article is very poorly written in that sense, because we are led to believe, all throughout the story, that this mean ol’ Catholic is trying to impose his views on prisoners and prevent them from worshipping as they please, which doesn’t appear to be the case. He seems to have tried to expose the prisoners’ actions as they gamed the system for special privileges and goodies to decorate their cells.
The reporter buried this in the story, and the prisoner’s agenda isn’t as fleshed out as it could be, apparently slanting this story against the priest.
If these prisoners were teenagers, I’d definitely think they were trying to tick off their Catholic, Sikh, Buddhist or Asatru parents.
May 15, 2008, at 5:32 pm
Inmates who don’t claim multiple religions are perfectly capable of trying to game the system by claiming one religion and getting the special goodies. Prisoners are pretty good at gaming the system; they’ve got nothing better to do with their time.
In fact, when you think about it, claiming multiple religions is an inefficient way to game the system. It makes you stand out as some kind of oddball instead of an offender finding religion.
Correctional officials must believe that religion is good for prisoners in a way that’s good for the system irrespective of whether it gives inmates the chance to game the system, or they wouldn’t support chaplaincies. Today they must treat Pagans equally with those on other paths, and must allow multi-path seekers similar rights.
The Pagan buzz reported by Jason on Fr Suss — from Pagans who are not on multiple paths — is that he was not respectful of the rights of Pagan offenders. Speculation about gaming the system doesn’t change that.
May 15, 2008, at 6:42 pm
Dave makes a lot of sense here.
Apparently, though, the prisoners aren’t standing out much as oddballs, because Suss was spectacularly unsuccessful at drawing attention to this alleged abuse of the system. And as I said, they seem to be the heroes of this article. Again.
And Jason’s comments on this pastor last Feb., which were very enlightening, still have yet to receive any kind of coverage, so they remain simply speculation, though I do believe what he said to be plausibly true (noting, of course, that no pastor or priest is duty bound to respect or like another’s religion, and that their duty is to convert and save, not remain covert and silent, about their faith and the fact that it is incompatible with other religions.)
Like Dave says, maybe this is a case of “the more religion the better” for these prisoners, though would perhaps be too obvious for me to point out that many of these combos have wildly differing value systems?
May 15, 2008, at 7:20 pm
“Another complaint about the first story was that it didn’t make clear that the new rules wouldn’t compel Suss to commune anyone who claimed a religion in addition to Catholicism.”
That’s a good point: what happens? Inmate A turns up for Mass, claims to be a Catholic but also claims to be Asatru, Buddhist or Follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Priest tells him (as any priest would tell anyone likewise claiming, in or out of prison) “Sorry, buddy, you have to pick one or the other and stick with it.”
Prisoner A goes to Warden to complain. “Hey, the Department of Corrections says I can be Catholic and Church-of-Bob! My rights are being infringed!”
What happens next?
Obviously, the Department can’t physically force the priest to, say, give the Eucharist to Prisoner A. But equally, the Department says Prisoner A is legally entitled to be in as many faiths as he wants to be.
Who gets to decide who is or is not a member of a particular faith?
Does the Department of Corrections lean on the priest in question to go along to keep the peace? Try and get him moved and someone more flexible about this stuff appointed as chaplain?
Sounds messy all round. I know convicted felons can’t vote, but imagine if someone wanted to register as both Republican and Democrat, and cast a vote for both candidates in the election. I rather think he’d be told it couldn’t be done.
May 15, 2008, at 7:26 pm
And also, some faiths are more easily mixed into a ‘multi-path seeking’ than others. You could, I imagine, combine Buddhism and Hinduism; I wonder about mixing in Sikhs with Hinduism - is that possible?
Certain varieties of Protestanism might also be amenable - I’m thinking of the Episcopal priest who claims she is also a Muslim.
But some faiths aren’t that amenable - I don’t think even the most liberal Jewish congregation would say “Okay, on Saturday, you can worship the One Lord of Heaven and Earth who is above all other gods, then on Thursday you can sacrifice to Thor”, regardless of how sincerely Inmate A feels he can do this.
May 15, 2008, at 7:27 pm
Suss would of course be correct as regards membership in the Catholic Church, but his take on Pagans is incomplete.
To be a member of a particular Pagan system, like Wicca or Asatru, one must usually be an initiate. However, it is perfectly possible to be a Pagan on one’s own. The term of art for such a person is Solitary, and publishers like Lewellyn Books make quite a business selling to Solitaries.
Stephen A. writes:
Not at all. However, people on multiple paths are likely to cherry-pick what they find attractive about different systems. One might be drawn to the Buddhist concept of karma but prefer a Native American sweatlodge as a mode of meditation.
May 15, 2008, at 7:57 pm
But that’s the thing, if this is about people picking what they prefer then which of their beliefs are being denied. Is an inmate “on multiple paths” denied their ability to meditate because they can’t do it in a Native American sweatlodge?
I don’t know the answer to that, but picking an example I’m more familiar with… What about a Catholic inmate whose preferred method of mediation is Eucharistic adoration? Is he denied his rights if he’s not given a regular opportunity to do so in prison. I would say no. There are other means of prayer available to him. Or what if his preferred form of Mass is the TLM? If he got that whenever he wanted he’d have more rights than free Catholics. I would even go so far to say that it can be acceptable to deny rosary beads in prisons for valid reasons. Freedom of belief is to protect a man’s conscience not his stuff.
May 15, 2008, at 10:15 pm
Brian:
Prisoners obviously have fewer rights than free persons. Any common practice of a religion can be denied an inmate on grounds of prison security. For a Wiccan that would include using a ritual knife to “cut” the ritual circle, and lighting candles to represent the God and Goddess. Such limits apply with equal strength to the practices of Christians and multi-path followers. You don’t get more rights because you’re a prisoner.
That being said, prisons are required to accommodate Pagan and multi-path inmates in the same manner as they accommodate Christians, Jews and Muslims. It obviously can’t be in exactly the same way because practices differ and the security considerations of each request must be separately pondered.
May 15, 2008, at 11:06 pm
Dave, it’s my understanding that in the prison system described in the article being a member of a certain religion gives you allowances to certain religious articles. I have no problem with this.
The part that seems odd is that you can apparently belong to made up religions such as the ones on in the article, “Protestant/Catholic, Jewish Orthodox/Seventh-day Adventist, Buddhist/Protestant/Sikh, Asatru/Catholic.” These are not religions. Where is a Protestant/Catholic church or a Jewish Orthodox/Seventh-day Adventist synagogue? If one of these groups existed and were on the prison’s list of religions with a set group of religious articles associated with it, then go nuts. But one inmate making up his own beliefs does not constitute a religion.
If the prison’s current list doesn’t sufficiently cover the spectrum of Pagan religions (I use the term as Dave in post 11 used it) then I’m all for the prison contacting the different groups and adding the basic religious articles associated with them to their list. But this current system of letting prisoners mix and match religions is, quite frankly, insulting to religion. It’s basically saying, “None of them are true, it’s just your opinion - go and pick ‘em like pizza toppings.”
May 16, 2008, at 1:02 am
Reminds me of the story about Bertrand Russell:
May 16, 2008, at 10:48 am
It should be noted that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller sects, cults, NRMs, and splinter-sects existing in America today. With numbers ranging from a handful to thousands. Any handful of them would curl the toes of any traditionalist Catholic or Jew (or Wiccan, for that matter), but our laws and Constitution allow their existence even if the more prominent religious authorities say they cannot exist, or have no claim to the titles they posses (the number of Catholic splinter-groups alone would dizzy the mind).
It is the nature of freedom. It’s messy, it’s often uncomfortable, and it usually offends at least some percentage of the population.
When considering religious freedom in prisons, once you open the door to real diversity, you also open the door to oddities, strangeness, and to many religious authorities, heresy and blasphemy. This was bound to happen once the courts, and legislators, decided that prisoners have many of the same fundamental religious rights as free men and women. It should surprise no-one that in a societal pressure-cooker like prison that odd and unusual ideas about faith would arise.
Allowing multi-faith adherence, I’m guessing, isn’t so much about that Asatru fellow getting Catholic communion, as it is about him tailoring his religious life to some internal vision. Perhaps one that includes a re-appropriated rosary and other Christian-oriented supplies. In essence we are allowing prisoners to create new religions within prison. In fact, in a generation or two I wouldn’t be surprised if we see new syncretic “hybrid” faiths found only within prisons. Will we see messianic forms of Paganism? Christ-centered faiths that look and act like Sikhs? Meditative mystic Judaism? It is certainly possible, since some faiths like that exist in the “free” world already.
The challenge, outside of concerns about “gaming” the system, is how to handle the marriage of the religious freedoms associated with the “outside world”, with the unique atmosphere of punishment (and one hopes, rehabilitation) inside of prison. Getting caught up in what a Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi will be “forced” or “pressured” to do is, in my opinion, missing the point, and targeting the wrong issue.
Like I said earlier, a real in-depth examination is needed here. One that interviews these prisoners, those that minister to them, and why they feel called to take advantage of these new rules.
May 16, 2008, at 11:19 am
Brian Walden asks:
Jason Pitzl-Waters has replied to this very well, so I can keep this short. People outside of prison are free to mix and match in this way, so people inside prison must be free to do so, too. As on the outside, the existence of an institution to harbor that mixed path is unnecessary.
The real strain the prison system can cite in objecting to multi-path inmates is that such inmates can ask for a rosary and a prayer rug, or some such combo. Makes one suspect that the real issue is the old-line chaplains’ discomfort with the messiness of religious freedom. If the prison system wanted to make a case against multiple paths it should, eg, investigate whether multi-path inmates have a higher recidivism rate or a higher rate of violence while incarcerated.
May 16, 2008, at 12:53 pm
Jason and Dave,
I think we just see the basic nature of religion differently. You see a religion as something a person or group makes themselves. I see a religion as something that exists which a person accepts. I think that’s the same conflict that’s going on in the story. The prison treats religion as something prisoners can create themselves while Fr. Suss is arguing that it’s the religion not the individual that says who’s a member and who’s not.
Anyone, incarcerated or not, can believe any combination of religions they want. I’m not arguing that prisoners can’t have their own convictions. But someone outside of prison can’t belong to a Religion-A/Religion-B religious group if that group doesn’t exist and I don’t think that prisoners should be able to either.
Let’s put it it this way. If the prison wants to make a big list of approved religious articles from all different faiths and let prisoners pick what they want from that list(or pick up to X number of items) without asking prisoners what religion they are that’s fine with me. My objection is to treating religion like its on the same level as rooting for your favorite sports team.
May 16, 2008, at 1:49 pm
No, it’s clear that he just doesn’t want to be required to participate in it. Outside the prison, he would not be required by the state to be part of somebody’s messy religion.
May 16, 2008, at 3:33 pm
Julia writes:
If you mean Fr Suss, the problem was that as chaplain he was the gatekeeper for such requests, and turned his disinclination into de facto policy.
May 16, 2008, at 7:31 pm
I thorougly enjoyed Jason’s comments above, as I always do, but I think he and others are missing the point.
Sure, we should certainly respect anyone’s right to “mix-and-match” religious beliefs and have complete freedom to do so. As noted above, there are now Episcopal Muslims, and we’ve previously discussed Episcopalian/Druidic priests.
But the issue here isn’t denying prisoners the right to think and pray as they please. Surely we’re all for that, as was Fr. Suss. As I said before, I don’t think Suss was upset that the prisoners were not all Catholics, or that the Catholics weren’t practicing the faith the right way (although surely he felt the latter, as most American priests must feel about their FREE parisioners.)
The problem here - which goes beyond, somewhat, what Suss initialy felt or didn’t feel about “made-up” religions in a philosophical sense, as expressed in the story - is that the warden surely has every right to not allow prisoners access to items that can be used as weapons or pose a danger to security - other prisoners and the guards.
For example, the accommodation of prisoner’s reasonable requests for prayer books, prayer rugs, icons, etc. certainly is the intention of the court ruling, and that’s all well and good.
But the unanswered question in these articles is this: Does the warden have the added discretion to know when the prisoner is gaming the system and have the right and authority to stop it? Such as when a prisoner who identifies himself as a Catholic one week all of a sudden sees that the Santeria believer in another cell got some neat stuff that he didn’t get, and “amends” his faith to include them, too. That’s what we mean by gaming the system.
This story fails the test of depth because it does not deal with that underlying issue, except in a very vague way, leaving us instead dealing with the frustrations of a priest who is upset that people are mixing religions (and thus, the implication of bigotry where none probably exists) rather than with the story BEYOND the initial story: the use and possible abuse of the system by prisoners.
May 16, 2008, at 7:57 pm
Stephen A. writes:
Absolutely. I gave an example of that regarding Wiccan ritual knives and candles.
You should give up the notion that you can ever stop inmates from gaming the system. It’s endemic to corrections.
May 18, 2008, at 12:37 pm
I’ll take your word for it that it’s endemic to the system, but I would never urge anyone to “give up” on anything of value, including the better management of prisoners. This is a rather obvious case in which gaming can be recognized and minimized.
May 18, 2008, at 2:48 pm
If discerned by perfectly objective observers. Evidently real-life chaplains do not fit that description.
May 18, 2008, at 9:16 pm
Who said prison chaplains were perfect, or perfectly objective? But they do see what most of us can’t, and discern what can be done to make it better. I hope we see a follow-up column on this issue in a few months telling us what’s happened.
May 19, 2008, at 2:15 pm
Stephen, this issue was kicked up by what strongly appear to the be prejudiced responses of a clearly imperfect chaplain. It’s a weak reed on which to lean.
May 19, 2008, at 9:43 pm
As noted before, the story’s “slant” was that this was a bigoted pastor who simply was upset other religions existed that he couldn’t control.
I strongly suspect there is far more to the story that meets the eye, and it was in fact a flawed reporter (perhaps who was rushed to throw together a follow-up report on ‘that chaplain who was complaining about prisoner’s religion’) that is the “weak reed” and whom I blame for being largely responsible for the confusion in our ability to analyze this completely issue here.
May 20, 2008, at 3:39 pm
Stephen: My source on this is not just that reporter. This was ventilated on Jason Pitzl-Waters’ blog.
May 21, 2008, at 5:57 pm
I have not referenced Jason’s blog at all in my responses. I’ve only been discussing this article, above.