Our last meeting was dedicated to parsing cases involving the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000, and reflecting on the previous discussions around legal inertia and the responsibility of chaplains and religious service providers to intervene in or encourage legal proceedings.

1. The most common argument against a religious accommodation is that it would risk the facility’s “safety and security,” although all group members noted that correctional administrators wield this argument almost automatically despite the facility—not the incarcerated petitioner—having the legal burden to prove their restrictive policy does not unreasonably burden the petitioner’s free religious exercise.

   • The group also reflected on what the role of the chaplain should or can be in the course of these cases. Chaplains are often relied upon to demonstrate or confirm an incarcerated person’s sincerity and the importance of a particular accommodation, and their testimony can be a turning point in a judge’s decision.

   • Moreover, one chaplain in the group noted that when the administration does not listen to the concerns of their incarcerated populations, chaplains and volunteers can be the last source of help in drawing attention to injustices on the inside—including related to basic quality of life concerns. For example, when mold had completely taken over showers at the facility, he and his team were the ones who convinced the administration to address the problem.

2. We also discussed the general importance of deeming materials “religious,” and the extent of a chaplain’s power over what an incarcerated person wears, eats, reads, their personal grooming, their allotted time outside, and their access to communal programming—all of which can be connected to religious freedoms. In this way, chaplains can exercise enormous power over the quality of life inside.

3. The group also discussed the importance of external institutional support from houses of worship and religious organizations in offering materials and services to those incarcerated—including those outside their specific faith.

   • This can include recruiting chaplains and volunteers, offering non-denominational programs related to life skills and general enrichment, and supporting other religious organizations that may not be as well resourced in securing materials for their members inside.

   • Several group members also agreed that their organizations’ separation from the state can be crucial in building trust with incarcerated populations who are sometimes understandably wary of accepting help from the same agencies that imprisoned them.