ACLU protests removal of Bible verses / LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, July 18, 2009

The Associated Press

July 18, 2009

Prisoner and free-speech advocates are demanding a written guarantee that inmates at a Virginia jail can receive letters containing religious material after a prisoner said his mail was censored.

The American Civil Liberties Union, its Virginia chapter and several other civil, religious and prisoner rights organizations sent a letter to Rappahannock Regional Jail Superintendent Joseph Higgs Jr. requesting that the issue be resolved without litigation.

Anna Williams, whose son was detained at the jail for several months, said officials cut out entire sections of several letters she sent to her son that contained Bible verses or religious material. She said the jail cited prohibitions on Internet material and religious material sent from home.

“Obviously for security issues the right to practice religion while incarcerated is a balancing act to some extent, but that can’t possibly apply to a mother sending religious passages to her son,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia.

Higgs said in a written statement that the letter prompted him to initiate an internal investigation.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

Irish (Leslie Swearingen) says…

Are inmates permitted to keep religious material pertaining to their faith in their cells?
Shouldn't letters be private?
July 18, 2009 at 10:24 a.m.
pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

Gee where is the LJWorld's usual contingent of fine conservative contributors? I would think they would be falling all over themselves to praise the ACLU. Mmmm this must not fit their preconceptions of the ACLU or they would rather ignore this so they can have the ACLU as a punching bag on another day.
July 19, 2009 at 12:06 a.m.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…

That's what I was wondering Paul. Here I'd heard that the ACLU hates Christians and the Bible, like all liberals do.

Not that it matters, they'll just say it's a publicity stunt. Much more convenient for them than admitting their own often incorrect biases.
July 19, 2009 at 12:24 a.m.
soldier1 (anonymous) says…

just plain wrong
July 19, 2009 at 12:24 a.m.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

Well, Paul and Jonas, would you care to wager what the ACLU's stance would be if that same inmate was refused permission to put up a Christmas Tree in the prison yard?

The action taken by the ACLU in this case, while initiated on behalf of a Christian woman whose letters to her son were censored, actually demanded the end to censorship of *any* religious material included in inmate mail. Not that I think either of you care, but you might take notice of the ACLU's prior record in addressing the religious rights of Virginia prisoners, such as when they demanded that the Alexandria jail stop allowing ministerial services to be provided by a Christian organization (who provided services to inmates of all denominations and services ranging "from Christmas to Ramadan and Rosh Hashanah") because it violated the separation of church and state.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Actually, it's nice to see that the ACLU considers Christians to be covered by the same rights they demand for other religions. It would be more gratifying if they chose to take such a stand in a state where anyone gives a rat's a** what the ACLU (or anyone else) thinks about prisoner rights of any kind, which the Commonwealth most certainly does not.
July 19, 2009 at 2:16 a.m.
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

The ACLU works to protect all our rights. This is another good example.
July 19, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…

"the ACLU's prior record in addressing the religious rights of Virginia prisoners, such as when they demanded that the Alexandria jail stop allowing ministerial services to be provided by a Christian organization "

Well, nota, at least you provided the link so that your superficial and inaccurate portrayal of the ACLU's position could be easily discovered.

From the article---

"Where this is difficult is that the jails are asking and paying a Christian organization to promote what should be nonsectarian religious services," Willis said. "Jails and prisons ought to open their doors to religious entities, but the important thing is that the jails open their doors to all religions equally."

Last year, the Alexandria Sheriff's Office used jail funds to pay Good News $5,500 for religious services. Under its contract with Good News, the sheriff's office has agreed to pay a total of $45,000 for the next four years, according to Capt. Tony Davis. In October, the Arlington County Sheriff's Office signed a renewable agreement that calls for paying Good News $10,000 annually, according to the ACLU.
July 19, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

I will praise the ACLU for this. This at least shows that sometimes, maybe 10% of the time, they are not just protecting some secular cause.

That being said, I think they did this for "CYA" and to be able to be effective and not appear hypocritical when it comes defending Muslim prisoners (80% of black prisoners are Muslim/Muslim converts) so in other words, they've already been outed like those like O'Reilly and have been forced to do what's right.
July 19, 2009 at 1:48 p.m.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…

"... the jail cited prohibitions on Internet material and religious material sent from home."

[ This article is a stub. You can help LJW by expanding it. ]
July 19, 2009 at 2:09 p.m.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Well, nota, at least you provided the link so that your superficial and inaccurate portrayal of the ACLU's position could be easily discovered."

I'd rather be 'superficial and inaccurate' than blatantly stupid and gullible, boohoozo. The point (you know what a point is - like the one on your little pinhead) is that the ministry providing services did so equally for all denominations. The ACLU objected to the arrangement because it was a Christian organization, period.

Maybe herr klowne would care to explain where they're going to find a completely non-denominational provider of ministerial services? Or maybe the great klowne thinks that the services for each denomination should be provided by ministers from each faith individually? Like they do in the armed forces, or hospitals, or ... oh, wait ...
July 20, 2009 at 2:19 a.m.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…

"I'd rather be 'superficial and inaccurate'"

I think that sums up your posting history pretty well.
July 20, 2009 at 8:12 a.m.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…

"If the guy weren't a prisoner, "

Really? Care to elaborate? What other forms of censorship do you think they would overlook?
July 20, 2009 at 8:41 a.m.
supertrampofkansas (anonymous) says…

Nota,

I'm with Bozo on this one. Think about it. Change the Christian organization to a Muslim organization who would provide "services equally for all denominations". This would be your tax dollars at work. Would you agree to support or even think that this would be an equal opportunity religious provider?
July 20, 2009 at 8:53 a.m.
logicsound09 (anonymous) says…

Those who think the ACLU is "anti-Christian" are ignorant

Those who insist that the ACLU is "anti-Christian" on an article about the ACLU defending the a person's right to receive Christian content in their letters are ignorant and obstinate.
July 20, 2009 at 9:02 a.m.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (anonymous) says…

Paul wrote his best letters from prison.
July 20, 2009 at 9:05 a.m.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…

I'm sorry, Notajayhawk, but if the most compelling argument that you can make is them protesting the use of public funds to pay for religious services, where the article itself says that a court case has not been pursued (from 2006, I'm sure you can followup if you care), then I'm not particularly convinced.

I'm sure it would be no problem for a non-profit organization such as the one in question to do one of two things and not have any issues with the ACLU. One, do volunteer work. Two, accept donations from private citizens or other church networks in order to continue their work.
July 20, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.