So has anyone seen Mike Lindell’s 3-hour movie?
How about these assholes in California?
Fuck these stupid motherfuckers!!!
Why the fuck are they literally catering to this asshole??? He gets special fucking meals?? He gets better food than other prisoners???
Those that run the facility in Alexandria, Virginia should be fired for this.
Bob Sellers is the Newsmax anchor who walked out during an “interview” with a ranting Mike Lindell. A day later, Sellers apologized to Lindell.
Well, if rioters can go to Mexico, why shouldn’t they be fed the food of their choice?
The blatant racism is sickening.
The “QAnon shaman” went on a hunger strike and sued the detention facility on First Amendment grounds (he claimed an organic diet was a vital element of his shamanic religious practices). A judge bought the argument and ordered the detention facility to comply with his religious dietary restrictions. It’s in the article you linked. I don’t think those that run the facility should be fired for complying with a court order.
What the fuck. Did he say “I’m sorry for not agreeing to let you spout your defamatory garbage, and exposing me personally to a massive lawsuit”?
Minny’s pie was all organic.
Yeah, from all those pesky death threats…just a pain in the ass, really.
Have they ever bought it from an American Indian? Or an Indian? Sure as Hell wouldn’t buy from a black man. But entitled white man who thinks he is one with nature gets special treatment after participating in a cop’s death…
Well, they’ve bought it from Jews and Muslims (I’m pretty sure some of the latter are black men). The Federal Bureau of Prisons routinely offers kosher and halal meals to inmates. IANAL, but my understanding is that U.S. case law on this is messy, with courts in different districts arriving at different conclusions, particularly when it comes to state prison systems. But it’s also my understanding that the federal prison system does actually accommodate a lot of religious dietary requests, in compliance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It’s also worth noting that Jake Angeli (the “QAnon Shaman”) hasn’t actually been convicted of anything yet. He’s awaiting trial. And, for that matter, he’s been charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.” As far as I know, there’s no indication that he was directly involved in Brian Sicknick’s murder.
They we all involved. It was group action. And Jake Angeli is no more a shaman than I am a Priest.
- I am not a Priest. Or Catholic.
Ok, but again, he hasn’t actually been charged with Officer Sicknick’s murder. Then here’s that whole “innocent until proved guilty” thing - he hasn’t been convicted of anything.
I don’t think he should get special treatment different from other federal detainees awaiting trial, but as far as I can tell, he isn’t, really. Other federal inmates have their religious dietary requirements accommodated.
Shrug He claims he’s a shaman. He may well be a religion of one. But federal courts have (I think for very good reasons) traditionally shied away from passing judgement on which religions are “real”. Maybe his specific case was poorly decided. IANAL, so I don’t know enough to say one way or the other. If you can cite other cases where detainees awaiting trial have been denied similar accommodations for their religious beliefs, you’ve got something.
Not all priests are Catholic, or even any other variety of Christian for that matter.
You don’t need case law to show the issue. QAnon does not style itself as a religion. The title of shaman is no more a real thing than arguing that a head of a Ku Klux Klan is an actual wizard. Q is not some prophet, he’s just supposed to be some guy who has insider information.
A religion of one makes no sense. A religion is (very simply defined) a system of shared beliefs among a group of people. A religion of one just means these are his own beliefs. But then anyone who has any dietary restrictions is just going on their own personal beliefs.
So all you’d need is proof that they ever deny anyone the right to have organic food as their diet. If they do, then they are denying their “religion of one” belief.
No, I believe the reason they decided to feed him has nothing to do with a valid legal argument. It’s that they just don’t think it’s an important enough hill to stand on. They don’t want him becoming a martyr. Even though he hasn’t been convicted yet, the things he is charged with are slam dunks–there is no way a finder of fact could have a reasonable doubt that it happened when we have it all on video, including his own statements. So he’s going to be convicted, so better not to have people being able to argue he was harmed by forcing a feeding tube.
Also, maybe they can get him to give up his co-conspirators. Because you can’t stop an army by only punishing the foot soldiers. The generals can always get more cannon fodder.
(Note, not saying that foot soldiers are always canon fodder. But they generally are in attempted coups.)
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe Jake Angeli claims to be a shaman of QAnonism. He’s a follower of QAnon who also happens to claim to be a shaman. (I genuinely don’t know - does he refer to himself as the “QAnon Shaman”?)
I Am Not A Lawyer, so I genuinely don’t know. Is this a legal standard that is commonly applied in the U.S. in deciding claims of infringement of the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and RFRA? Does a plaintiff generally have to show that their practices are common to a broader community of belief? If so, it seems to me that adherents of many New Age and neo-pagan religions would be at a severe disadvantage, since many of them make idiosyncratic and individualized beliefs and practices a core element of their creed and conduct. I’d also bet (although I don’t know) that Mr. Angeli would claim that he is a member of a broad community of belief, stretching back thousands of years (he would almost certainly be factually wrong in such an assertion, but that doesn’t seem much different to me than the claims of many Wiccans, for example).
No, I think you’d have to find proof that they ever deny anyone the right to have their dietary preferences accommodated if they based that claim on religious grounds. If you can find a case where someone was denied religious accommodations on the grounds that a “religion of one” isn’t a real religion, even better. And just to re-emphasize, the folks running the detainment center did deny Mr. Angeli his dietary demands. It was a federal judge who issued a court order requiring them to comply with his “religious” dietary requirements.
Again, “they” did deny his demands. It was a judge, with no connection to his case, that issued the court order. Now, of course, a judge is still a human being, and it’s possible that he privately thought the detention authorities were being stupid and making him a martyr, but that wasn’t the legal reasoning in the court order.
I imagine the courts and the Bureau of Prisons are very reluctant to have to approve the validity of religious beliefs.
Given that “shaman” means “disseminator and practitioner of bullshit”, then I would say the appellation is entirely accurate. Perhaps even redundant.
Here we have noted idiot Sarah Palin:
Here, in particular, is the definition of being a willful idiot:
“Evidently he did because he is sworn in as our president, but no one will convince me, nor anyone else with common sense and a sense of justice - no one will convince us that there was not shenanigans.”
If evidence will not sway your position, then your position is not based on evidence. Ergo, you are a worm-eating troglodyte.