
But you knew that. News happens everywhere.
But sometimes a news story just hits you a certain way and forces a comment. That was the case Thursday afternoon.
I hadn’t planned on writing this column, and was actually looking for a story to fill this space when I stumbled upon a story about a home invasion and a kosher diet.
Yeah, it caught my attention and I opened the file. The headline was “Condemned inmate on food strike over kosher diet.”
The story, written by Pat Eaton-Robb of The Associated Press, begins: “A Connecticut inmate awaiting execution for his role in the killings of a woman and her two daughters during a violent home invasion says he is refusing to eat prison food that he believes is not kosher.
“Steven Hayes sued the Department of Correction in August, alleging it would not serve him a kosher diet. He filed an amended complaint on Nov. 7, which was made public on Wednesday, detailing what he describes as ‘extreme weight loss.’”
According to the story, “Hayes and another man, Joshua Komisarjevsky, were sentenced to die for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters, 17-yearold Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, at the family’s home in Cheshire. The victims were tied up, two of them were sexually assaulted and their bodies were found after the home was set on fire. Hawke-Petit’s husband, Dr. William Petit, was severely beaten but survived.”
For a newsman who peruses the wires during the week, that story so far — unfortunately — is not uncommon. There is no shortage of crime stories in America. But what really got me thinking was the next paragraph:
“Hayes describes himself in the lawsuit as an Orthodox Jew and says he’s been requesting a kosher diet since May 2013. He says he has suffered ‘almost two years of emotional injury from having to choose between following God and starving or choosing sin to survive.’”
Although the prison offers “common fare” meals which “meet all nutritional requirements and accommodate recognized religious dietary restrictions,” Hayes contends that the kosher food brought into the prison is contaminated during the preparation in the use of pots, pans, preparation surfaces and appliances that also are used to cook nonkosher food.
He said the department does not have a “reliable orthodox certification that ‘guarantees’ with certainty that the food and process is kosher.” He writes that his religion requires “strict adherence, not close enough.”
That’s the rub. “Strict adherence.” As a Jew, strict adherence would also mean “Do not kill.” It’s a popular commandment. It cracks the Top Ten at No. 6. There are also rules in the Old Testament about sexual immorality — which sexually assaulting tied up children would most certainly fall under.
It’s infuriating when people can claim persecution on religious grounds, when they are only in the situation because they did not adhere to their own faith standards. Had he “chosen to follow God” he would not have killed and assaulted the family. He “chose that sin” and is now having to “survive” with the consequences.
In Hayes’s case, he wasn’t even “close enough” during his crime.
For those who claim the prisons are full of innocent people, yes, I suppose it’s possible that he was falsely accused and never should have been imprisoned. But if that were in fact the case, and Mr. Hayes is wrongly incarcerated, I would suggest he read about one of my biblical heroes, Joseph. He was imprisoned wrongly but remained faithful to God and eventually was used by the Lord to save the known world. (His story can be found in Genesis 37-50.)
But short of that, I’d say that Mr. Hayes could better use his remaining time on death row sharing his faith in a way that will leave a positive impact on those around him, rather than giving people yet another reason to despise the supposed hypocrisy of religion.
At least, that’s the way I see it.
dmadore@timesrecord.com
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less