Dungeons & Dragons as Religion:
From Kay v. Friel, 2007 WL 295556 (D. Utah Jan. 26), a prison religious freedom case (emphasis added):
Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to make a prima facie showing that his beliefs are religious in nature, and that they are sincerely held. Plaintiff's Complaint does not include any facts to support his conclusory assertion that he is a "sincere and devout" practitioner of the Wicca religion. More importantly, however, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing that the items being withheld from him--tarot cards, Dungeons and Dragons game, and metal religious symbol--are necessary to the practice of the Wicca religion. [FN: It appears that Plaintiff is permitted to possess a plastic religious symbol. Plaintiff's Complaint does not state how the composition (i.e. metal versus plastic) of the unidentified religious symbol is relevant to Wiccan religious beliefs or practice.] Similarly, Plaintiff has not clearly described the nature of the "religious ritual" he was prevented from conducting, or its relevance to the Wiccan religion. In the absence of such basic factual allegations the Court cannot conclude that the restrictions challenged by Plaintiff amount to a burden on his exercise of religion. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint is insufficient to state a Free Exercise claim under the First Amendment.
(The software won't let me write it with angle brackets, sadly, ruining the joke, but...)
Not being in practice, and not following these kinds of cases, can I just throw a question up for the collected worthies here: Is the 'indicia of religion' standard like the pornography standard, i.e., 'I know it when I see it'? It seems like the cases I read about here are bordering on random and capricious in that the plaintiff is assumed to have a burden that is only articulated upon appeal, and only loosely bound by limited precedent.
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything... including, apparently, the Wicca Module to AD&D.
The D&D game? Nope. Don't buy it, not one little bit. I'd be surprised if you could find any expert witness on either Wicca or D&D who would, for that matter.
The prior gives me first hand experience with watching prisoners kill time by making demands with no basis just for the sake of something to do.
The latter gives me first hand experience with idgits who think that A) D&D, B) goth subculture, C) Charmed, The Craft or Buffy, D) Satanism and E) New Agers/UFO chasers are somehow the same as the religion I practice. In fact, I have experience with people assuming I am A-E because some jackass they met before made idiotic claims and identified said claims as Wicca. There's nothing so grand as when your 'first impression' was made six months before by some goth claiming she could change her eye color at will (except when people were watching.)
For the record, not one of the three things listed are necessary for Wicca (especially the D&D manual!) You could be a completely devout, dedicated Wiccan naked and cuffed in an empty room. There is no ritual that can't be observed completely through visualization, and even in physical rituals there is no implement that can't by substituted by simple gestures.
What I was thinking when he read this was suppose he's got the imagination (he's certainly got the time) to think up explanations of all these things and to file an amended complaint asking for the same stuff. Is the Court going to call him out and say either 1) Wicca is not a "real" religion or 2) Wicca doesn't really require a copy of the D&D game. Both of those are dangerous approaches to take if you don't want courts dividing legitimate religions from non-legitimate ones or deciding what religions really require and what they don't.
He decapitated the blog?
--Joe de Maistre
They just laugh at you, man.
Only if he rolled a natural 20.
no, but it was very, very sharp. . .
If they needed to, the court could have brought in Tracy Hickman who is both a practicing Mormon and an expert on Dungeons &Dragons.
There has to be some process where the government determines whether a claim is actually religious in nature. Otherwise the First Amendment can be abused by the the insincere who simply want to get away with shit. Like a con who insists on being allowed to play D&D.
Now if he was requesting some masterwork thieves tools and +2 shocking busrst dagger we might have a problem.
(Going back to the late-1970s. Is there still such a spell?)
Indeed, or a scroll of Domination or Dire Charm.
Speaking of which, has anyone noted the number of us making D&D jokes within this thread?
I've read (in Knights of the Dinner Table, a roleplaying-themed comic book) that dice are forbidden in many prisons because they are used for gambling, which is forbidden because it leads to violence. Prisons don't forbid D&D as a rule, but individual prisons certainly will if they've had a bad experience with it in the past.
(The Knights of the Dinner Table folks were given as a gift by some ex-cons a set of polyhedral dice carefully made out of paper, glue, and weighted on the inside with salt granules which were used in their D&D game on the inside. KoDT also features as one of its minor characters an ex-con working at going straight sometimes with the moral assistance of his gaming group.)
Well KeithK, that was my point. The first amendment can't be abused if special treatment isn't afforded to religion. The government avoids establishing religion by not recognizing any activity or belief as either religious or non-religious. It should be with a blind eye that people are treated equally. As it is, government substantially affects religion in this country by special exemptions for religious persons and activities. It should recognize only socially advantagious activities such as charity for exemption. Whether that charity is religious, non-religious, or anti-religious is immaterial.
Nice munchkin reference.
Watch out for the chicken on your head...
Has anyone noticed that no one so far has felt the need to ask, e.g. "what is a Vorpal weapon?"
They should set up the blog to play Weird Al Yankovic's "White and Nerdy" when you view this post
but the first amendment itself affords special treatment to religion. It doesn't prohibit the government from passing laws abridging the free excerise
of charity; it prohibits the government from passing laws abriding the free exercise of religion.
Not exactly true. After Smith the government may elect to treat religious conduct equally with nonreligious conduct as long as the regulation is neutral and of general applicability.
So whether knives, masks or other objects is necessary shouldn't be the issue; the better course as a matter of policy is treating all conduct equally, as it gets the government out of the business of inquiring into the beliefs of its citizens.
While you make good argument for repeal of the Free Exercise Clause, which violates your principles by specifically applying to and benefiting religion, the fact of the matter is that for the time being, it's still on the books.
While you make good argument for repeal of the Free Exercise Clause, which violates your principles by specifically applying to and benefiting religion, the fact of the matter is that for the time being, it's still on the books.
Just to clear up any confusion, I forgot to mention that neither the Establishment Clause nor the Fre Exercise Clause would necessarily forbid an accommodation policy granting more protection to religious conduct than that required by the First Amendment. But those who argue that religiously motivated conduct should be granted more protection than that called for by the Free Exercise Clause -- as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court in Smith --shouldn't rely on the First Amendment, at least not as long Smith is blackletter law.
Some states have decided to grant more protection as a matter of public policy or judicial interpretation of their own state constitutions, but that's only a matter of grace.
There are many ways to escape from prison: television, books, working out, drugs, games (legitimate and otherwise) and religion. Many inmates want to be Jewish so they can get the healthier/better (in their view) Kosher diet. There's a good contingent of Messianic Jews (they get the diet, can say they're Christian, and get to have special services.) And Islam, because of its ease-of-conversion feature, is popular, but mostly with Blacks.
One complicating factor in a religious and gaming inmate's life is prison property rules. Where I work, inmates may keep as many religious books and items as will fit in a special religious box (this box is considered off-limits to correction officers' hands: they can search it, but the inmate does the touching--do not touch the Native American inmates' eagle feathers or you're asking for some serious litigation!) but regular books are limited to a certain number based on arbitrary, physical, and security concerns. So it might be advantageous to have the DM Guide as a religious item, but I think the inmate in question was probably pushing things a bit farm. As inmates do at times. Like days ending with Y, for instance.
Oh, wait. Scarred Lands is just D20 material, not trademarked D&D. Clearly, I was writing heretical Wiccan doctrine.
Dettmer v. Landon, 617 F.Supp. 592 (E.D. Va, 1985)
Dettmer v. Landon, 799 F.2d 929 (4th Cir., 1986)
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp