Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[bilateralrope]

Jake Angeli, horned man who stormed Capitol, refuses to eat as guards won't feed him 'organic food'

Jacob Chansley, also known as Jake Angeli, the man who stormed into Capitol in Washington wearing a fur hat and horns, has reportedly not eaten since Friday, as the guards at the detention centre where he is currently being held won't serve him "organic food".

The Arizona man has made his first court appearance, via phone, for charges related to his role in the Capitol riots.

He is accused of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

His mum told local news Angeli has not eaten since Friday as he demands "organic food".

Angeli is a 33-year-old QAnon conspiracy theorist who lives with his mum and often attends Pro-Trump rallies.

In an interview last week, he said he is not worried about the federal misdemeanour charges.

"I'm not really all that worried about it because, in all honesty ... I didn't break any laws. I walked through open doors," he said.

According to ABC15, the public defender who was in court representing the man on Monday said he is on an "extremely restrictive diet, perhaps for religious reasons". He claims he has not eaten since being taken into custody on Friday.

The judge said the statement was "deeply concerned" and asked the defender to work with he guards on his dietary issues.

Angeli's mother, who was also in the courtroom for her son's hearing, referred to her son as a "patriot" in an interview.

She also said he is a Navy veteran.

News of the self-professed QAnon Shaman's dietary restrictions have been shared widely across social media, where people ridiculed the man's suggestion that he should be served "organic food" while in detention for his role in the attempted coup.

James Felton
@JimMFelton
5 days from "I'M GOING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT" to "no quinoa, are you 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 are you being 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸?"

Jana Lynne Sanchez
@janasanchez
Talk about snowflakes

Geraldine
@everywhereist
This actually feels like a joke. Like something you couldn't put in a book because your editor would be like, "No, sorry, too unrealistic."

The Tennessee Holler
@TheTNHoller
This is it. This is the white privilege mountaintop.

Martyn McLaughlin
@MartynMcL
Gluten for punishment

Angeli made headlines last week after storming the US Capitol, mostly his choice of headwear.

Jamiroquai singer Jay Kay had to post a video clarifying that it was not him who had been photographed inside the building.

And conservatives like to call the left weak.

[loomer]

Eating organic food is literally part of the Nazi ideal and has remained a major point of far-right ideology, so - no surprise there. See e.g. Treitel, 'Nature and the Nazi Diet' 2009 Food and Foodways 17(3) 139. The same is also true of the assumption and appropriation of myths and religious customs from other peoples. In this respect, Mr. 'Shaman' is pretty textbook, albeit of the modern semi-autonomous form of neo-nazi spirituality (and yes - that is a whole thing) rather than the forms predicated on initiatory circles.

[PainRack]

2021 has decided it's time to go one step further.





Hey. Remember how we used to laugh at obviously horrible names ?










This is Robert MONSTER. He's a tech guy who owns Epik, which hosts Gab and other alt right Nazi media platforms. Mainly famous for going Synagogue shooting was a false flag op and trying to upload Christchurch shooting, claiming the truth should not be censored.

He's in the news again because with Parler down, Gab has resurfaced as the social media platform of the Fascist regime again.






And on the other hand, we have Eugene Goodman.

For those who know, this literally translates as Noble Good Man.







That's him in Iraq.







Yes. He's as cool a soldier as he is a cop.





The by now iconic picture.



And he has a daughter who said she wanted to be a cop 7 years ago. Well... In lieu of BLM, I understand if she doesn't but I cannot agree with Eugene that we in trouble if she wants to be one.





So. 2021.



Robert Monster, a man whoose name literally means brightens/illuminates the monstrosity of others.



Eugene Goodman, a hero, a man who served those who would kill him, a hero, a veteran who has given his blood,sweat and tears to defend democracy.





we owe an apology to Timothy Zahn and John Ringo, don't we ?

[Solauren]

Eating organic food is literally part of the Nazi ideal and has remained a major point of far-right ideology, so - no surprise there. See e.g. Treitel, 'Nature and the Nazi Diet' 2009 Food and Foodways 17(3) 139. The same is also true of the assumption and appropriation of myths and religious customs from other peoples. In this respect, Mr. 'Shaman' is pretty textbook, albeit of the modern semi-autonomous form of neo-nazi spirituality (and yes - that is a whole thing) rather than the forms predicated on initiatory circles.

Let him starve himself to the point he needs to be hospitalized, put him on IVs, and repeat. Its his choice if he wants to suffer.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I mean, we wouldn't want to infringe on his rights to do what he wants or his autonomy...

[Solauren]

Yup, and if he wants to mess up his health, that's his problem. The police just have to keep him alive and as healthy as he will let them up to his trial.

[bilateralrope]

Donald Trump creates a crisis for his business empire just before returning to it

Max Abelson
09:34, Jan 13 2021

It's right there in the first few pages of Trump University Branding 101: "The truth is, everything you say and do is important," he wrote in the 2008 book's foreword. "Actions matter."

After egging on a mob that rioted inside the US Capitol last week, the brand that's at the heart of President Donald Trump's career and fortune is in crisis. He is being shunned by some of the political donors who fuel him, the tech companies that amplify his voice, the banks handling his finances, the American golf industry that brings business to his clubs, and even the Canadian company behind his online stores.

It took all four years of Trump's presidency for most of those corporate allies to turn on him. Now, they're standing up to him when their pressure can't change much about an administration that's in its final days. But they do have the power to hurt his return to the business world.

"As he's walking out of the palace gates he's torching the kingdom, but in doing so he's permanently damaging his own brand," said Sally Hogshead, a branding specialist. "There's a shame factor with being associated with the Trump brand for a larger percentage of the population than before."

The Trump Organization didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a span of a few days, Trump has been rejected by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Washington. Internet giants took away his social media megaphone after his posts encouraged violence, with Twitter Inc suspending his personal account and Facebook Inc. extending a ban indefinitely. Shopify Inc said it shut down his e-commerce stores, impacting the Trump Organization's official store and a campaign shop. The firm "does not tolerate actions that incite violence," a spokeswoman said.

Some of the banks that Trump and his family have worked with for years are distancing themselves.

Deutsche Bank AG has decided to refrain from further business with Trump and his company, said a person with knowledge of the matter, asking not to be identified because the deliberations were confidential. Trump owes the Frankfurt-based lender more than NZ$415.6 million.

Signature Bank, the New York lender where Ivanka Trump once served on the board, said it's cutting ties while it presses for his resignation. Signature is closing two personal accounts in which Trump held about $7.3m, said a spokesperson for the firm. The New York Times reported the bank's moves earlier on Monday (local time).

Finance firms more broadly say they'll use the power of their campaign donations to condemn the politicians whose attempt to overturn the November presidential election spurred last week's riot. In Washington, House lawmakers are on course to try to make Trump the only president in US history to be impeached twice.

Even Trump's favourite elite bastion is taking its business from him. The PGA of America said its board voted to end an agreement to host next year's PGA Championship at a golf course owned by Trump in New Jersey.

"It's become clear that conducting the PGA championship at Trump Bedminster would be detrimental to the PGA of America brand," Jim Richerson, PGA of America's president, said in a video message. When Trump announced his presidency with a speech that said Mexican immigrants include rapists, the PGA decided not to hold its 2015 Grand Slam of Golf at Trump National in Los Angeles.

Trump's business future isn't bright, according to Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co who ran against Trump in the 2016 primaries.

"His brand is toxic," Fiorina said Monday on Bloomberg Television. "That will have real consequences for his businesses, even as perhaps he continues to have support from some in the Republican Party and some in the nation."

Even so, Trump's career is a story of stormy falls and improbable rebounds – and his brand may be stronger than ever among the fervent fans he drew to the Capitol. Supporters said there would still be lucrative opportunities for him in right-wing media, including a possible role at a news channel, his own media venture or a book deal. Simon & Schuster has already moved to distance itself from one backer of election-fraud claims, cancelling plans to publish a book by Reublican Senator Josh Hawley.

"I'll be the first to admit it's not always easy," Trump wrote in the university's 2008 book on branding. Eight years later, just before moving into the White House, he agreed to pay $34.6m to settle claims that the defunct school cheated thousands of students.

Rebecca Horan, a brand strategist, said it's hard to imagine Trump's brand "coming back from treasonous actions." She added a caveat: "History shows us that we have short memories."

Trump couldn't handle losing an election. So he tried to fight and keeps finding more to lose.

[Darth Yan]

It looks like a few centuries of lionising violent political action is starting to show major effects.

This is pretty bad but there's always been violence (a southern congressman clubbed a senator for denouncing slavery back in the 1850s.) The problem is that the centrists kept ignoring it in the name of "bipartisanship". Had Obama pushed for war crimes in 09 I think things might not have gotten AS bad.

They're also in a city named for a violent insurrectionist who got angry at the taxing of his slave's labour. The country is founded on violence, and the legitimacy it brings.

It's a whole thing, and too much to type here.

No disputing that. America as a whole has a problem with owning the past or understanding WHY someone might be angry or resentful even if they make some steps. If they don't fully own it not a lot will change.

Last year I saw a movie called the Forgiven (which has a somewhat fictionalized account of the truth and reconciliation commission.) Towards the end one of the side characters (a ditzy somewhat racist housewife) is forced to see her husband get dragged before the commission and give a detailed confession about how he helped torture and murder innocent teenagers. Afterwards she speaks to Archbishop Tutu and admits that while she was deeply angry with him at first, it was ultimately something that she needed to hear. She's sympathetic in that her delusions are forcibly shattered and she finds out that the man she loves did something monstrous....but at the same time it's made clear that she needed to undergo that in order to become a better person.

[bilateralrope]

McConnell believes impeaching Trump will help rid him from the party, source says

From CNN's Manu Raju, Phil Mattingly, Jim Acosta, Kaitlan Collins and Dana Bash

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that he believes that impeaching Donald Trump will make it easier to get rid of Trump and Trumpism from the party, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

The silence has been deliberate — and left open his option of supporting impeachment.

Another person with direct knowledge says there’s a reason McConnell has been silent on impeachment as other Republicans have pushed back: He’s furious about what happened Jan. 6, even more so that Trump has shown no contrition.

One source said McConnell "hates" Trump for what he did last week following the attacks on the Capitol that left at least five people dead including a Capitol Hill police officer.

McConnell has been steadily moving his conference away from Trump for weeks. While he knows they all aren’t there with him, but believes the party needs to turn the page.

McConnell has made no commitments on voting to convict Trump, and wants to see the article itself before voting.

Trump and McConnell still have not spoken since last Wednesday's riot, and in fact haven't spoken since McConnell’s floor speech acknowledging Joe Biden as President-elect in December.

Another source tells CNN that McConnell couldn’t get Trump on the phone when he refused to sign the stimulus bill over the Christmas week.

McConnell has since told others in the wake of the stimulus circus he won’t talk to Trump again.

If this turns out to be true and Trump has lost McConnell's support, then McConnell must be thinking the Republican's will be able to purge the Trump supporters. At least by the time McConnell is up for reelection in 6 years.

[Darth Yan]

Fat chance of that happening. The old republican base is dying out and more and more people are turning against it, either to become liberal or embrace Trumpism (Which is bad).

[loomer]

Eating organic food is literally part of the Nazi ideal and has remained a major point of far-right ideology, so - no surprise there. See e.g. Treitel, 'Nature and the Nazi Diet' 2009 Food and Foodways 17(3) 139. The same is also true of the assumption and appropriation of myths and religious customs from other peoples. In this respect, Mr. 'Shaman' is pretty textbook, albeit of the modern semi-autonomous form of neo-nazi spirituality (and yes - that is a whole thing) rather than the forms predicated on initiatory circles.

Let him starve himself to the point he needs to be hospitalized, put him on IVs, and repeat. Its his choice if he wants to suffer.

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

[bilateralrope]

Facebook and Twitter could be sued for “censorship” under proposed state law

North Dakota bill would let users sue social-media sites for blocking posts.
JON BRODKIN - 1/13/2021, 11:38 AM

Republican state lawmakers in North Dakota want Facebook and Twitter to face lawsuits from users who have been "censored."

A bill submitted by the six legislators last week is titled, "an Act to permit civil actions against social media sites for censoring speech." It says that social media websites with over 1 million users would be "liable in a civil action for damages to the person whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed, and to any person who reasonably otherwise would have received the writing, speech, or publication." Payouts for "censored" users would include "treble damages for compensatory, consequential, and incidental damages."

Even if passed by the North Dakota legislature, the bill would likely have no effect due to a conflict with federal law. The proposed law "would immediately be deemed void as preempted by Section 230 [of the Communications Decency Act]," because "federal law is supreme over state law where they conflict, and this would create an express conflict," attorney Akiva Cohen wrote in a Twitter thread about the bill.

Section 230 is a US law enacted in 1996 that says providers and users of interactive computer services shall not be held liable for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

The law thus gives legal protection to companies that moderate user-generated content on the online platforms they operate. The law has been a major topic of controversy recently, particularly among Republicans, with President Trump demanding that social media companies be stripped of their legal immunity.

The North Dakota bill's lead sponsor is Republican Rep. Tom Kading, who is angry that Facebook and Twitter banned Trump after he incited the insurrectionist riot at the US Capitol.

"Lead bill sponsor Rep. Tom Kading said, 'It's just wrong to ban a sitting president,' but he noted his proposal is meant to provide a legal tool only for those who live in North Dakota," the Grand Forks Herald wrote yesterday.

Bill oddities
Curiously, the North Dakota bill text says it would apply only in cases when the company "is immune from civil liability under federal law." That seems to mean that the proposed North Dakota law would no longer apply if Section 230 is repealed by the federal government—but the proposed law likely can't be enforced while Section 230 is in place, either.

"There's no question that this would target conduct immune under federal law—and, in fact, if [Section] 230 were repealed nobody could ever be liable under this law (since it only reaches immune conduct)," Cohen wrote. In other words, the North Dakota bill is "incredibly stupid," he wrote.

Even if the North Dakota bill can be implemented, determining exactly when a provider could be sued for damages would difficult. Despite attempting to make providers liable for "censorship," the bill text says providers can block posts that are "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable subject matter." Blocking anything that doesn't fit into those categories would be considered "censorship" under this proposal, but standards like "excessively violent" and "otherwise objectionable" are vague.

“We’ll protect you”
"There's a pretty obvious First Amendment problem with the government saying 'we'll protect you from being sued if you ban content we want you to ban, but not different substantive content we like,'" Cohen wrote. "That's the definition of a law regulating speech that turns on the substance of the speech in question, so there can't be any government standard for defining 'otherwise objectionable.'"

Additionally, the bill provision allowing lawsuits from people who didn't get to see blocked content is "an unfathomably bad idea," Cohen wrote. "If Twitter banned me, all 19K of my followers would have the ability to separately sue Twitter for damages for being deprived of my pearls of wisdom and gif game?"

Beyond this particular bill, Cohen argued that "legislating around [Section] 230 at the state level is doomed."

Looks like some Republicans in North Dakota want to make it clear that they support the coup attempt.

[Solauren]

And suddenly, Social Media refuses to allow any users from North Dakota.....

[Solauren]

Eating organic food is literally part of the Nazi ideal and has remained a major point of far-right ideology, so - no surprise there. See e.g. Treitel, 'Nature and the Nazi Diet' 2009 Food and Foodways 17(3) 139. The same is also true of the assumption and appropriation of myths and religious customs from other peoples. In this respect, Mr. 'Shaman' is pretty textbook, albeit of the modern semi-autonomous form of neo-nazi spirituality (and yes - that is a whole thing) rather than the forms predicated on initiatory circles.

Let him starve himself to the point he needs to be hospitalized, put him on IVs, and repeat. Its his choice if he wants to suffer.

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

Is he part of a recognized religion or ethnic group, or dietary pattern? (i.e Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Veggetarian).
If so, I'm all for that. In fact, I insist on it.

However, to the best of my knowledge, 'Qanon Shamon', is not. Claiming it's a spiritual belief is not the same as being part of an organized or recognized religion. You can claim anything as a personal belief, and use it manipulate circumstances to your advantage.

Therefore, IMHO, if he doesn't want to eat the food offered, he's just being difficult for the sake of it, and should suffer the consequences.
However, if it turns out he's part of an organized and recognized religious group, then definitely look after his dietary requirements.

[Jub]

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

I'm unaware of any spiritual or mental state that would make food of a certain type any less capable of meeting said prisoner's needs. This would be rather like an American jailed in Japan demanding a western-style menu because they don't standard Japanese prison food. I wouldn't consider it cruel to deny such a request for special treatment any more than I consider it cruel to fail to provide a kosher or vegan menu.

Also, why do we value spiritual beliefs more than secular ones? I could easily hold a belief that due to the inherent flaws in the carceral system that it is a prisoners duty to do everything in their power to erode that structure which would include only eating meals that cost over $1 million per serving. My belief would be no less sincere than those of many practicing Christians in Canada and yet one view is protected by law and the other would be laughed at.

[loomer]

Let him starve himself to the point he needs to be hospitalized, put him on IVs, and repeat. Its his choice if he wants to suffer.

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

Is he part of a recognized religion or ethnic group, or dietary pattern? (i.e Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Veggetarian).
If so, I'm all for that. In fact, I insist on it.

He maintains a dietary pattern in accordance with his spiritual position, as abhorrent as it is. Why should it matter if that position has formal recognition?

However, to the best of my knowledge, 'Qanon Shamon', is not. Claiming it's a spiritual belief is not the same as being part of an organized or recognized religion. You can claim anything as a personal belief, and use it manipulate circumstances to your advantage.

And why should those of us who do not belong to organized or recognized religions not be accorded an assumption that we are genuine in our spiritual practices, precisely?

Therefore, IMHO, if he doesn't want to eat the food offered, he's just being difficult for the sake of it, and should suffer the consequences.
However, if it turns out he's part of an organized and recognized religious group, then definitely look after his dietary requirements.

Again, why do only members of 'organized and recognized' religious groups' deserve ethical treatment? If evidence emerges, as it often does, that he is not consistent with his dietary requirements, the meal privileges can be revoked. This happens extremely often, in fact - so often that review standards for dietary requests already exist for most Anglosphere prison systems. So why, precisely, should we presumptively assume bad faith where people are not part of an 'organized and recognized religious group'?

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

I'm unaware of any spiritual or mental state that would make food of a certain type any less capable of meeting said prisoner's needs. This would be rather like an American jailed in Japan demanding a western-style menu because they don't standard Japanese prison food. I wouldn't consider it cruel to deny such a request for special treatment any more than I consider it cruel to fail to provide a kosher or vegan menu.

A failure to provide a kosher menu to Jewish inmates (and a halal one to Muslim inmates, and so on) is in fact cruel as it inflicts psychological torment, and the right of inmates to religious meals is recognized in American, Canadian, English, and Australian law, as well as in the EU. It is an emerging element of human rights law because the recognition of it is becoming so widespread. You will also find, if you spend even five seconds looking, that there are many spiritual states that make certain foods inedible to people of faith. You will even find, if you look, that it is not an unknown practice to accommodate requests for vegan meals (and vegetarian ones are, of course, basically a standard option at this point in any system that allows any choice of meal whatsoever) where those requests are made due to a genuine ethical or religious commitment to veganism!

EDIT:

Also, why do we value spiritual beliefs more than secular ones? I could easily hold a belief that due to the inherent flaws in the carceral system that it is a prisoners duty to do everything in their power to erode that structure which would include only eating meals that cost over $1 million per serving. My belief would be no less sincere than those of many practicing Christians in Canada and yet one view is protected by law and the other would be laughed at.

Please demonstrate that your secular belief is being devalued or less valued than a spiritual belief by providing any inmate a meal compatible with their religious requirements.

[Jub]

A failure to provide a kosher menu to Jewish inmates (and a halal one to Muslim inmates, and so on) is in fact cruel as it inflicts psychological torment,

Incarceration as practiced by most western powers including the 4 states you've noted below causes psychological harm and we still consider it humane enough to practice.

You will also find, if you spend even five seconds looking, that there are many spiritual states that make certain foods inedible to people of faith.

Having a mental illness and believing in things that aren't real isn't worthy of special treatment. If we're willing to force-feed inmates who aren't eating for other reasons I see no reason not to force-feed people for reasons of religious insanity.

Please demonstrate that your secular belief is being devalued or less valued than a spiritual belief by providing any inmate a meal compatible with their religious requirements.

Would I not suffer just as much for refusing to eat a meal costing less than $1 million as a vegan suffers for not eating meals that contain animal products?

[loomer]

A failure to provide a kosher menu to Jewish inmates (and a halal one to Muslim inmates, and so on) is in fact cruel as it inflicts psychological torment,

Incarceration as practiced by most western powers including the 4 states you've noted below causes psychological harm and we still consider it humane enough to practice.

Well, some of us do - others of us want to dismantle it. However, you will note that even these states and the EU recognize that prisoners retain the right to their religious practice, including rights to religious meals, and reject the premise that just because prisons are psychologically stressful prisoners have no rights.

You will also find, if you spend even five seconds looking, that there are many spiritual states that make certain foods inedible to people of faith.

Having a mental illness and believing in things that aren't real isn't worthy of special treatment. If we're willing to force-feed inmates who aren't eating for other reasons I see no reason not to force-feed people for reasons of religious insanity.

Please demonstrate that the desire to keep kosher, halal, or otherwise maintain a religious or ethical diet is a 'mental illness' or 'insanity'.

Please demonstrate that your secular belief is being devalued or less valued than a spiritual belief by providing any inmate a meal compatible with their religious requirements.

Would I not suffer just as much for refusing to eat a meal costing less than $1 million as a vegan suffers for not eating meals that contain animal products?

Is your desire to eat a meal costing less than $1 million in fact a sincerely held ethical or religious position that you have consistently maintained in your day to day to life? And, again, please demonstrate that the provision of religious meals in any way devalues your secular beliefs.

[Jub]

Well, some of us do - others of us want to dismantle it. However, you will note that even these states and the EU recognize that prisoners retain the right to their religious practice, including rights to religious meals, and reject the premise that just because prisons are psychologically stressful prisoners have no rights.

Why are religious practices given special preference when other equally harmless secular forms of stress relief aren't equally accomodated?

Please demonstrate that the desire to keep kosher, halal, or otherwise maintain a religious or ethical diet is a 'mental illness' or 'insanity'.

*Hearing, seeing, tasting or believing things that others don’t.

That seems to describe religions as no single religion has a majority of humanity believing in the same things.

*Persistent, unusual thoughts or beliefs that can’t be set aside regardless of what others believe.

These would also apply to deeply held religious beliefs. It wouldn't be difficult to see such resistance to a rational explanation of why their god can't logically exist.

*Strong and inappropriate emotions or no emotions at all.

Most people would not react strongly to a meal not being prepared in accordance with the beliefs of a religious cult.

These are symptoms of psychosis by the way.

Is your desire to eat a meal costing less than $1 million in fact a sincerely held ethical or religious position that you have consistently maintained in your day to day to life? And, again, please demonstrate that the provision of religious meals in any way devalues your secular beliefs.

If my belief is that such meals are required only in the case that I am incarcerated against my will I would be unable to practice them in my daily life.

If the beliefs of others are given special treatment and mine are not how does that NOT devalue my beliefs?

EDIT: Oh, and the US doesn't even follow your rules...

[loomer]

Well, some of us do - others of us want to dismantle it. However, you will note that even these states and the EU recognize that prisoners retain the right to their religious practice, including rights to religious meals, and reject the premise that just because prisons are psychologically stressful prisoners have no rights.

Why are religious practices given special preference when other equally harmless secular forms of stress relief aren't equally accomodated?

Because religious practices, when denied, tend to produce special and significant forms of harm, Jub. If the deprivation of a form of secular 'stress relief' (and that is an exceptionally strange way to regard religious practices) produces similar harm then it should, subject to relevant safety and rehabilitative concerns, be provided.

Please demonstrate that the desire to keep kosher, halal, or otherwise maintain a religious or ethical diet is a 'mental illness' or 'insanity'.

*Hearing, seeing, tasting or believing things that others don’t.

That seems to describe religions as no single religion has a majority of humanity believing in the same things.

*Persistent, unusual thoughts or beliefs that can’t be set aside regardless of what others believe.

These would also apply to deeply held religious beliefs. It wouldn't be difficult to see such resistance to a rational explanation of why their god can't logically exist.

*Strong and inappropriate emotions or no emotions at all.

Most people would not react strongly to a meal not being prepared in accordance with the beliefs of a religious cult.

These are symptoms of psychosis by the way.

Okay. Now actually demonstrate what you were asked to demonstrate. All you have done is misquote diagnostic criteria for psychosis, which is almost universally held to exclude ordinary religious belief. You want to advance the extraordinary claim that all religion - and even culture, since keeping kosher and halal is often as much cultural as religious - is mental illness. Provide the extraordinary proof, or shut the fuck up.

Is your desire to eat a meal costing less than $1 million in fact a sincerely held ethical or religious position that you have consistently maintained in your day to day to life? And, again, please demonstrate that the provision of religious meals in any way devalues your secular beliefs.

If my belief is that such meals are required only in the case that I am incarcerated against my will I would be unable to practice them in my daily life.

So, in other words, no - it isn't. But I'll go along with you anyway. Sure, you should have that right - and the usual custom in these matters is to, where the needs exceed the budget available and cannot reasonably be met, to meet them to whatever standard is available and then rely on the prisoner's own funds to meet the rest. So sure, you can eat the $1 Million Meal - it's just that you'll be paying for the excess costs.

If the beliefs of others are given special treatment and mine are not how does that NOT devalue my beliefs?

Well, again, those are sincerely held beliefs and not someone trying to be contrarian, but I actually don't object to you receiving your special meal, as outlined above.

Now, as it happens, Angeli will receive his organic diet in prison. This is a good start - next, we need to ensure that all prisoners receive the appropriate diet to maintain their human rights.

EDIT:
You have a terribly irritating habit of editing your posts.

EDIT: Oh, and the US doesn't even follow your rules...

Yes, and? You will note if you actually follow up that the right to a religious diet is recognized but poorly implemented and often abusively denied by jails, leading to lawsuits and protests. Are you suggesting that this means the right does not exist?

[Jub]

Because religious practices, when denied, tend to produce special and significant forms of harm, Jub.

It's almost as if religion is harmful and shouldn't be given a seat at the table... Religion can't cause harm if it isn't treated seriously and given special legal protections.

If the deprivation of a form of secular 'stress relief' (and that is an exceptionally strange way to regard religious practices) produces similar harm then it should, subject to relevant safety and rehabilitative concerns, be provided.

But it won't be and you know it.

Okay. Now actually demonstrate what you were asked to demonstrate. All you have done is misquote diagnostic criteria for psychosis, which is almost universally held to exclude ordinary religious belief. You want to advance the extraordinary claim that all religion - and even culture, since keeping kosher and halal is often as much cultural as religious - is mental illness. Provide the extraordinary proof, or shut the fuck up.

Should I point to the faith healers and their faithful first or the people who convulse and speak in tongues as a regular part of worship... How about the people who ignore scientific advice and refuse modern medical treatments such as blood transfusions even in the face of certain death... Or those who think the world is less than a million years old and is flat... There are just so many ignorant and harmful beliefs to choose from.

So, in other words, no - it isn't. But I'll go along with you anyway. Sure, you should have that right - and the usual custom in these matters is to, where the needs exceed the budget available and cannot reasonably be met, to meet them to whatever standard is available and then rely on the prisoner's own funds to meet the rest. So sure, you can eat the $1 Million Meal - it's just that you'll be paying for the excess costs.

Why should that be the case? The system shouldn't get to pick and choose which requests to meet based on little things like funding. Afterall, think of the mental harm it would cause.

Now, as it happens, Angeli will receive his organic diet in prison. This is a good start - next, we need to ensure that all prisoners receive the appropriate diet to maintain their human rights.

I'd respect the choice more if they would also do that for less famous prisoners who aren't also literal terrorists.

Yes, and? You will note if you actually follow up that the right to a religious diet is recognized but poorly implemented and often abusively denied by jails, leading to lawsuits and protests. Are you suggesting that this means the right does not exist?

Can a right be said to exist if it isn't applied? Would those rights cease to exist if the prison was underfunded and thus incapable of meeting said needs? If not, why should it be a right at all?

[loomer]

Because religious practices, when denied, tend to produce special and significant forms of harm, Jub.

It's almost as if religion is harmful and shouldn't be given a seat at the table... Religion can't cause harm if it isn't treated seriously and given special legal protections.

Please demonstrate that the harm caused by revoking legal protections from the free exercise of religion is less than the harm caused by permitting it.

If the deprivation of a form of secular 'stress relief' (and that is an exceptionally strange way to regard religious practices) produces similar harm then it should, subject to relevant safety and rehabilitative concerns, be provided.

But it won't be and you know it.

Won't it be? You have proof that equivalent harms to imprisoned peoples are ignored because they are secular, yes? Provide it.

Okay. Now actually demonstrate what you were asked to demonstrate. All you have done is misquote diagnostic criteria for psychosis, which is almost universally held to exclude ordinary religious belief. You want to advance the extraordinary claim that all religion - and even culture, since keeping kosher and halal is often as much cultural as religious - is mental illness. Provide the extraordinary proof, or shut the fuck up.

Should I point to the faith healers and their faithful first or the people who convulse and speak in tongues as a regular part of worship...

Yes, what of them? Demonstrate that their beliefs and practices are in fact a mental illness, please, and that that mental illness can be differentiated as a special mental illness of 'religious insanity' as you are advancing.

How about the people who ignore scientific advice and refuse modern medical treatments such as blood transfusions even in the face of certain death...

Please demonstrate that they are doing so because they are mentally ill.

Or those who think the world is less than a million years old and is flat...

Please demonstrate that this is, in fact, a mental illness.

There are just so many ignorant and harmful beliefs to choose from.

Please demonstrate that ignorance is a mental illness and insanity, then. While you're at it, you should also pay heed to the ordinary religious person, who does none of these things, and demonstrate - as you have claimed - that they are mentally ill.

So, in other words, no - it isn't. But I'll go along with you anyway. Sure, you should have that right - and the usual custom in these matters is to, where the needs exceed the budget available and cannot reasonably be met, to meet them to whatever standard is available and then rely on the prisoner's own funds to meet the rest. So sure, you can eat the $1 Million Meal - it's just that you'll be paying for the excess costs.

Why should that be the case? The system shouldn't get to pick and choose which requests to meet based on little things like funding. Afterall, think of the mental harm it would cause.

Perhaps in addition to demonstrating the above, you should spend more time reading closely. As I said - the system should meet that request to whatever extent it can be met within the budget, rather than declining to meet it at all.

Now, as it happens, Angeli will receive his organic diet in prison. This is a good start - next, we need to ensure that all prisoners receive the appropriate diet to maintain their human rights.

I'd respect the choice more if they would also do that for less famous prisoners who aren't also literal terrorists.

Yes, they should do that. We are in agreement on that part: Every prisoner has the right to receive a diet that is adequate and in accordance with their human rights, regardless of their alleged or proven crime.

Yes, and? You will note if you actually follow up that the right to a religious diet is recognized but poorly implemented and often abusively denied by jails, leading to lawsuits and protests. Are you suggesting that this means the right does not exist?

Can a right be said to exist if it isn't applied? Would those rights cease to exist if the prison was underfunded and thus incapable of meeting said needs? If not, why should it be a right at all?

The right is recognized to exist even within that system, and where it is not applied, is the subject of fairly frequent legal action and protest, fuckwit. As to your latter? No, those rights do not cease to exist if there is a funding issue, because that isn't how rights work. Where a right cannot be adequately met due to financial difficulties, rehabilitative concerns, or security concerns, it still exists, and should be accommodated to whatever extent it can be accommodated.

[Jub]

Please demonstrate that the harm caused by revoking legal protections from the free exercise of religion is less than the harm caused by permitting it.

My entire point is that religious beliefs shouldn't get special treatment even if there is an initial period where it causes harm.

Won't it be? You have proof that equivalent harms to imprisoned peoples are ignored because they are secular, yes? Provide it.

Say a new inmate is a person who normally follows a very rigid routine in his daily life. Perhaps even a very specific diet, just to evenly match our scenario, shouldn't his needs be met if he claims that not being able to follow as much of his routine as possible is causing him undue harm?

Yes, what of them?

Is it not insanity to die in the face of perfectly safe treatment of a common condition? Would you accept the same refusal if it came from a point of view not influenced by religion? How about if that refusal was instead for a dependant?

Demonstrate that their beliefs and practices are in fact a mental illness, please, and that that mental illness can be differentiated as a special mental illness of 'religious insanity' as you are advancing.

It's hard to demonstrate something exists when current psychology gives it a specific exemption and thus mostly ignores it.

What I can do is point out a link between religion and schizophrenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... izophrenia

I can also quote passages from studies that support my case:

Culturally held shared belief
It was difficult to recruit nurses to work in the psychiatric hospital in
Lusaka, Zambia because most trainee nurses shared the belief that you can
‘catch’ mental illness from the patients. Clearly, beliefs shared by members of
a religious minority would also fit into this category. However, DSM IV states
that a delusion ‘is not an article of religious faith.’18

From [url="https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default- ... ditedx.pdf]Is Faith Delusion?[/url]

Here we ignore an abnormal behavior because we've specifically chosen to define religion as not being a mental illness.

I can also cite citations whereby other psychologists acknowledge that religion is too often a blind spot is psychology:

'Therefore, not surprisingly, religious beliefs are commonly encountered in psychiatric practice and, like any other type of belief, span a continuum from normal to delusional. However, religious beliefs can present a unique challenge to the clinician attempting to identify where along this spectrum a particular belief lies (Pierre, 2001). Unfortunately, religious beliefs in psychiatric patients are relatively neglected by psychiatrists and psychologists.'

'However, these religious references were criticized for suggesting that religiosity in general was symptomatic ''Spiritual Starvation'' in a Holy Space 7 of mental illness (Post, 1993), and most have therefore been removed from DSM-IV. As a result, religious beliefs are largely ignored altogether (Pierre, 2001). DSM-IV includes ''religious or spiritual problems'' as a general statement within the V-Codes (V62.89):'

'The contents of religious beliefs lie beyond tests of falsity and therefore cannot strictly be called delusional according to DSM-IV. DSM-IV further specifies that shared beliefs, such as religious doctrines, are in particular exempt from delusionality (Pierre, 2001): the belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). In the case of religious beliefs, this shared belief criterion substitutes for the test of falsity.'

From “Spiritual Starvation” in a Holy Space—a Form of “Jerusalem Syndrome”

'The trajectories of the interaction between religion and mental illness are complex, and a number of diverse opinions have been expressed about the relationship between these two entities (Dein & Littlewood, 2007;Ng, 2007;Pierre, 2001). For example, a number of commonalities have been expressed about spiritual experiences and psychosis (Goretzki, 2007)'

'For example, our results show that the commonest "psychopathologies" among the prophets are hallucinations and delusions; however, despite the high prevalence of these psychopathologies, only 6% met criteria for schizophrenia. It had been argued that a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasising conviction, preoccupation and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is, and is not, pathological (Pierre, 2001).'

'Part of the problem in differentiating psychosis from prophesy is that models of religious fanaticism display the classic symptoms of schizophrenia such as hearing voices, delusions of grandeur, hallucinations, sociopathy, paranoia, believing that they have supernatural powers, etc. This may turn infectious since many of these religious schizophrenias may become evangelists or Internet propagandists (Pierre, 2001).'

Prophecy or schizophrenia: A comparative study of psychopathology and quality of life of “prophets” and schizophrenia patients

It certainly seems as if there is a healthy debate among the psychological community about just where religion and abnormal thought intersect with a strong cultural influence that causes difficulty in easily examining this subject.

Please demonstrate that they are doing so because they are mentally ill.

How is it not a form of mental illness to choose death over a safe and proven medical treatment with an extremely low risk of poor medical outcomes? Is not death due to refusal of treatment equivalent in terms of outcome to outright suicide?

Perhaps in addition to demonstrating the above, you should spend more time reading closely. As I said - the system should meet that request to whatever extent it can be met within the budget, rather than declining to meet it at all.

If the purpose of the request is to harm the system can it be said to have been met if it's done within a budget?

The right is recognized to exist even within that system, and where it is not applied, is the subject of fairly frequent legal action and protest, fuckwit. As to your latter? No, those rights do not cease to exist if there is a funding issue, because that isn't how rights work. Where a right cannot be adequately met due to financial difficulties, rehabilitative concerns, or security concerns, it still exists, and should be accommodated to whatever extent it can be accommodated.

How can something be a right if it cannot be universally accommodated? Shouldn't rights be both self-evident and universal if they are to be considered ineffable?

EDIT: I can provide many more quotes about religion as it relates to mental illness which will prove that there is a significant blind spot when it comes to research into how and when religion might become harmful. I'd also argue that it's completely stupid to strictly define religious beliefs as not being a form of mental illness as the DSM-V does. If we're to be objective we should never define something so broad as religion as being immune to any diagnosis.

[loomer]

Please demonstrate that the harm caused by revoking legal protections from the free exercise of religion is less than the harm caused by permitting it.

My entire point is that religious beliefs shouldn't get special treatment even if there is an initial period where it causes harm.

Okay - so why should religious beliefs be excluded as a human right, precisely? Because that is the root of their 'special treatment' which you seek to strip. Further, you are still presupposing the following:
1. Legal protections for religious beliefs causes more harm than it prevents.
2. Revoking these protections will produce less harm than it will cause.
Prove it.

Unless your actual position is that the amount of harm produced by either is irrelevant, and that harm can be justified if it is inflicted upon the religious by virtue of the fact it is inflicted only on the religious. Is that your position, or is it as I have suggested above, that the 'special treatment' granted to religious practices (which is in fact not all that special from a human rights perspective) produces more harm than would be produced by revoking that 'special treatment'?

Won't it be? You have proof that equivalent harms to imprisoned peoples are ignored because they are secular, yes? Provide it.

Say a new inmate is a person who normally follows a very rigid routine in his daily life. Perhaps even a very specific diet, just to evenly match our scenario, shouldn't his needs be met if he claims that not being able to follow as much of his routine as possible is causing him undue harm?

Where that routine is not contrary to rehabilitative or security concerns, yes, they should be met to the extent that it is possible. Even the request for a diet should be accommodated. We are in agreement on this point, unless you wish to advance that they should be denied these requests in the absence of a legitimate rehabilitative or security concern.

Yes, what of them?

Is it not insanity to die in the face of perfectly safe treatment of a common condition? Would you accept the same refusal if it came from a point of view not influenced by religion? How about if that refusal was instead for a dependant?

I would call it a poor choice, but not insanity. You have yet to demonstrate that these decisions are the result of mental illness. Do it, or shut the fuck up.

Demonstrate that their beliefs and practices are in fact a mental illness, please, and that that mental illness can be differentiated as a special mental illness of 'religious insanity' as you are advancing.

It's hard to demonstrate something exists when current psychology gives it a specific exemption and thus mostly ignores it.

And yet you feel confident advancing the position that it is in fact a mental illness. Either prove it, or shut the fuck up.

What I can do is point out a link between religion and schizophrenia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... izophrenia

Yes, and? You will note that the link is not 'religion is schizophrenia' but that certain experiences of religious peoples can mirror schizophrenic episodes, though usually without the social harms or prolonged duration that schizophrenia usually maintains.

I can also quote passages from studies that support my case:

Culturally held shared belief
It was difficult to recruit nurses to work in the psychiatric hospital in
Lusaka, Zambia because most trainee nurses shared the belief that you can
‘catch’ mental illness from the patients. Clearly, beliefs shared by members of
a religious minority would also fit into this category. However, DSM IV states
that a delusion ‘is not an article of religious faith.’18

Here we ignore an abnormal behavior because we've specifically chosen to define religion as not being a mental illness.

Yes, and we've chosen that because by most metrics, it is not a mental illness. However, also note that the abnormal behaviour you've chosen to highlight is cultural, not religious, in origin! You will also note that the conclusion of Professor Sims from this very paper (which is not in fact a study) is that, and I quote, 'faith, in and of itself, is not and cannot be delusion.' (emphasis mine)

I can also cite citations whereby other psychologists acknowledge that religion is too often a blind spot is psychology:

'Therefore, not surprisingly, religious beliefs are commonly encountered in psychiatric practice and, like any other type of belief, span a continuum from normal to delusional. However, religious beliefs can present a unique challenge to the clinician attempting to identify where along this spectrum a particular belief lies (Pierre, 2001). Unfortunately, religious beliefs in psychiatric patients are relatively neglected by psychiatrists and psychologists.'

'However, these religious references were criticized for suggesting that religiosity in general was symptomatic ''Spiritual Starvation'' in a Holy Space 7 of mental illness (Post, 1993), and most have therefore been removed from DSM-IV. As a result, religious beliefs are largely ignored altogether (Pierre, 2001). DSM-IV includes ''religious or spiritual problems'' as a general statement within the V-Codes (V62.89):'

'The contents of religious beliefs lie beyond tests of falsity and therefore cannot strictly be called delusional according to DSM-IV. DSM-IV further specifies that shared beliefs, such as religious doctrines, are in particular exempt from delusionality (Pierre, 2001): the belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). In the case of religious beliefs, this shared belief criterion substitutes for the test of falsity.'

From “Spiritual Starvation” in a Holy Space—a Form of “Jerusalem Syndrome”

Yes, religion can and sometimes does present difficulties for psychology. This does not establish the claim you are making, namely, that all religious belief is a mental illness that can be characterized as 'religious insanity'. Now, I went ahead and actually got that paper (did you, or did you - as it appears - just look at the citations of Pierre?) and it maintains there is a distinction between ordinary religious thought and extreme religious delusion!

'The trajectories of the interaction between religion and mental illness are complex, and a number of diverse opinions have been expressed about the relationship between these two entities (Dein & Littlewood, 2007;Ng, 2007;Pierre, 2001). For example, a number of commonalities have been expressed about spiritual experiences and psychosis (Goretzki, 2007)'

'For example, our results show that the commonest "psychopathologies" among the prophets are hallucinations and delusions; however, despite the high prevalence of these psychopathologies, only 6% met criteria for schizophrenia. It had been argued that a dimensional approach to delusional thinking (emphasising conviction, preoccupation and extension rather than content) may be useful in examining what is, and is not, pathological (Pierre, 2001).'

'Part of the problem in differentiating psychosis from prophesy is that models of religious fanaticism display the classic symptoms of schizophrenia such as hearing voices, delusions of grandeur, hallucinations, sociopathy, paranoia, believing that they have supernatural powers, etc. This may turn infectious since many of these religious schizophrenias may become evangelists or Internet propagandists (Pierre, 2001).'

Prophecy or schizophrenia: A comparative study of psychopathology and quality of life of “prophets” and schizophrenia patients

Again, did you actually read the article, or just copy the citations from Pierre? It too drew distinctions between ordinary religious thinking and extreme delusion, and was focused on examining the interaction of religious belief and psychopathology, not on suggesting religion is psychopathological.

It certainly seems as if there is a healthy debate among the psychological community about just where religion and abnormal thought intersect with a strong cultural influence that causes difficulty in easily examining this subject.

Yes, there is - and funnily enough, that last study you introduced suggested that we integrate religious and spiritual viewpoints into mental health care because of their potential utility!

Please demonstrate that they are doing so because they are mentally ill.

How is it not a form of mental illness to choose death over a safe and proven medical treatment with an extremely low risk of poor medical outcomes? Is not death due to refusal of treatment equivalent in terms of outcome to outright suicide?

No, no - it is on you, having the made the claim, to demonstrate that it is mental illness, not me to demonstrate that is not. Further, yes, refusal to accept treatment is effectively suicide - so what? Are you suggesting that only mental illness can produce suicide? That it is never a rational position to sit down, calculate one's life, and decide 'I will not enjoy life more than I will suffer or cause suffering, and in my weighing of factors, I have determined death is preferable'?

Perhaps in addition to demonstrating the above, you should spend more time reading closely. As I said - the system should meet that request to whatever extent it can be met within the budget, rather than declining to meet it at all.

If the purpose of the request is to harm the system can it be said to have been met if it's done within a budget?

If the intent of the request is solely to harm the system then it is legitimate to reject it on both rehabilitative and security grounds.

The right is recognized to exist even within that system, and where it is not applied, is the subject of fairly frequent legal action and protest, fuckwit. As to your latter? No, those rights do not cease to exist if there is a funding issue, because that isn't how rights work. Where a right cannot be adequately met due to financial difficulties, rehabilitative concerns, or security concerns, it still exists, and should be accommodated to whatever extent it can be accommodated.

How can something be a right if it cannot be universally accommodated? Shouldn't rights be both self-evident and universal if they are to be considered ineffable?

Congratulations, you've hit on the problem with rights discourse. Now go and read Kennedy. In the interim: A right exists whether it is universally accommodate in common discourse because it is something a person has an entitlement to pursue and that others are not entitled to infringe upon. Where that right cannot be universally accommodated, it is usually understood that a person has the right to pursue it to whatever extent is in fact possible.

Further, regardless of what one thinks of human rights - I'm actually a skeptic myself! - it is an undeniable fact that prisoners in the US are legally entitled to the right to practice their religions subject only to legitimate rehabilitative, penological (which is usually held by the courts to extend to matters of practicality), and security concerns.

EDIT: I can provide many more quotes about religion as it relates to mental illness which will prove that there is a significant blind spot when it comes to research into how and when religion might become harmful. I'd also argue that it's completely stupid to strictly define religious beliefs as not being a form of mental illness as the DSM-V does. If we're to be objective we should never define something so broad as religion as being immune to any diagnosis.

I mean, feel free - but your position is not just that 'there is a blindspot!' which, sure! There is! That's why there are studies and papers on anything at all: to fill blindspots! Your position is that even the request for a halal meal is a symptom of a mental illness because religion in and of itself is a mental illness of 'religious insanity'. That is the position you must defend, not that there is a blindspot, or that religion should not be immune to any possible diagnosis. So, you know: Fucking do it, or shut the fuck up.

[wautd]

My religion requires that I eat lobster, Champaign and caviar at least once a week
Seriously tough, a prison isn't a hotel that offers a large daily buffet where its guests can pick and choose the food according to their preferences.
While I'm all in favour of prisons offering healthy food and a vegetarian alternative, it's practically not feasible to appease to everyone's personal religious preferences/superstitions. Serving non-organic food isn't the same as serving poison, neither is serving non-halal/non-kosher food.
If the prison has to adjust it's menu in order to appease to each and every single lifestyle and religion then eventually you'd have a very limited menu that would in turn be discriminating towards prisoners that like to eat things like pork or beef now and then.

(not that I want to jump in to the discussion between loomer and Jub, just giving my two cents)