NationStates Jolt Archive


Yet another assault on The Establishment Clause?

Straughn
01-05-2006, 10:07
I have said quite a bit in my stint here at NS about religious issues, and apparently we have another one making its way under the general radar.
Mind y'all, i'm not advocating a deliberate lack of rehabililtative action - that's not what this is about. Admittedly, it's a bit early, and may end up much more innocuous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801855.html

Single-Faith Prison Program Questioned

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 29, 2006; Page A02

The Justice Department plans to set aside cellblocks at up to half a dozen federal prisons for an ambitious pilot program to prepare inmates for release. But it has produced an outcry by saying that it wants a private group to counsel the prisoners according to a single faith.

The plans do not specify what that faith must be, but they appear to rule out secular counseling or programs that offer inmates guidance in a variety of faiths.

The Washington-based advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State charged in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Justice Department's Bureau of Prisons has tailored its bidding requirements to fit one particular program: an immersion in evangelical Christianity offered by Charles W. Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Outlining 10 ways in which the Bureau of Prisons' request for proposals from private contractors dovetails with Prison Fellowship's "InnerChange" program, Americans United contended that the plan is unconstitutional and urged Gonzales to withdraw it. Gonzales has not responded to the April 19 letter, Americans United said.

Independent experts on constitutional law asked by The Washington Post to review the bidding documents also questioned the plan's legality.

"There are all sorts of gray areas in the interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This doesn't seem to be in the gray area," said Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky. "This seems to favor religion over non-religion, and some religions over other religions. By wanting to fund only one religion, I think it runs afoul of what even the most conservative justices would be willing to tolerate."

Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas School of Law said he believes that "you can run religious programs in federal prisons" and that they "are highly promising." But he said the plan for taxpayer-funded counseling in a single faith, without any obvious provision for a secular alternative, is "problematic."

"One of the questions you have to ask is, 'Does the regular prison program do anything comparable to prepare prisoners for reentry?' " Laycock said. "I don't know the answer, but I've read that most prisons don't do much of anything. So in fact there may be no secular equivalent, and if the only way to get preparation for release is to go into a 'single-faith' program, that seems to be coercion of religion."

Department of Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the plan is noncoercive -- and constitutional -- because participation will be voluntary and the inmates who choose to take part will receive "no reduction in their sentence . . . no better facilities, same food, same privileges and disciplinary rules."

"In fact," Roehrkasse said in an e-mail, "chances are good that if they apply and are accepted for [the program] they must be moved farther away from home to participate, meaning they probably receive no family visits for the 18 month term of the program."

Roehrkasse said the bidding requirements were not tailored to Prison Fellowship Ministries. "Any and all organizations -- of any faith or none -- are eligible and invited to submit a proposal," he said.

On March 30, the Bureau of Prisons put out a formal request for proposals from private contractors to run the pre-release program, which it has named Life Connections. It held a meeting with possible bidders on April 18 and has set a May 16 deadline for proposals.

Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci L. Billingsley said $3 million has been appropriated for the program. She said it is possible that he bureau could approve several proposals and set up, say, a Roman Catholic program at one prison, a Jewish program at another and an evangelical Protestant program at a third.

"It's early to speculate, but we hope we'll have multiple contractors and multiple locations," she said. She added that she did not know whether inmates would be allowed to transfer between prisons to participate in a program of their choice.

Several federal prisons currently have multifaith programs in which inmates can select the faith they wish to study. This is the first time that the Bureau of Prisons has attempted to set up reentry programs built around a single faith, Billingsley said.

The request for proposals said the government "intends to make multiple awards for the provision of single-faith, residential reentry programs at one or more pilot site locations."

It said the purpose of the program is to "facilitate personal transformation for the participating inmates, and thereby reduce recidivism." It required contractors to "match inmates with personal mentors" from a "faith community" or other support groups, and it listed 10 "goal areas," including "spiritual development."

Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship Ministries, said it operates single-faith residential prison programs in six states and is "very interested" in the federal program, but has not decided whether to submit a proposal. He said his organization did not have any advance input.

"We didn't even know it was going to happen -- we just heard about it through the grapevine," he said.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 11:35
Crazy Prods!
Rei-Sareng
01-05-2006, 12:35
It's true that there's no sort of applicable secular method, as atheism strongly resists being defined as a faith, and science falls short when it comes to explaining why people should be moral.

However, I feel very, very wary about anything "streamlined" to set up evangelical protestant ministries, because evangelical protestantism seems to lend itself easily to being hijacked by vocal minorities who are less about the message of Christ (something which is hardly crystal-clear in the first place) than about hatred for people or things which are different.

That's not a damning statement for all evangelical protestants, by the way; I'm certain that the majority of evangelical protestants (heck, the majority of any faith) are good, moral people who do the best they can to get along.

For that matter, one could say the exact same thing about Islam, and even Buddhists aren't all shining pillars of morality (although I have heard good things - I can't recall where, alas - about the teaching of meditation in prisons - does anyone know anything more about that?).

What I'm getting at is that a single faith program is inherently a bad idea. This would be a good idea if it offered multiple faiths, or if prisoners could choose which one they wanted to attend/be instructed in (and I'd be even happier if there were a viable secular alternative, but unfortunately I can't see one).

Maybe we should just support Flying Spaghetti Monsterism for this thing.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 13:12
One thing i wouldn't like is the taxing of religeons.
Llanarc
01-05-2006, 13:38
Originally posted by Harlesburg
One thing i wouldn't like is the taxing of religeons.
Why not? Why shouldn't they pay their share the same as everyone else. It would stop sleekit types setting up their own bogus religion to avoid paying up.
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 13:41
Why not? Why shouldn't they pay their share the same as everyone else. It would stop sleekit types setting up their own bogus religion to avoid paying up.
Not really and i don't agree with the taxing for religeons.
Francis Street
01-05-2006, 14:02
It sounds like the US Gov wants to train more Republicans!
Harlesburg
01-05-2006, 14:15
It sounds like the US Gov wants to train more Republicans!
That is one way of putting it.
Muravyets
01-05-2006, 21:57
It sounds like the US Gov wants to train more Republicans!
Ha! All too likely.
Originally posted by [B]Article/B]
The Washington-based advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State charged in a letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Justice Department's Bureau of Prisons has tailored its bidding requirements to fit one particular program: an immersion in evangelical Christianity offered by Charles W. Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Charles W. Colson was one of the major players in the Watergate scandal, a true believer in unlimited executive privilege, a hardcore rightwinger, and a first generation neo-con. Here are some thumbnail sketch bios:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/charles.html

http://www.slate.com/id/77067/

Jeb Bush restored his civil rights (in exception to Florida law regarding felons) and now he's getting back into politics -- rightwing, pro-religion, anti-gay, the usual panoply.
Dempublicents1
01-05-2006, 22:57
Why not? Why shouldn't they pay their share the same as everyone else. It would stop sleekit types setting up their own bogus religion to avoid paying up.

They shoud pay - same as everyone else. That means that, as long as they are non-profit, they don't pay anything.


As for the OP, while I certainly think that we need to do more rehabilitiation and reduce recividism, I don't think the programs for that need to be faith-based. The studies that have been done show that any attempt to help integrate non-violent criminals back into sociey seem to do that. My guess is that job-training and job-placement programs will do a great deal more towards this end than any attempt to indocrtinate them into a faith. Much like charity work, this work could be done by a faith-based program, but such a basis may turn quite a few prisoners away, especially if they are limited as to the faith involved.

Of course, if a prisoner requests religious counseling, I see no reason that he should not have it provided.
TypAmericana
01-05-2006, 23:24
Well, I’m not so sure what this establishment clause is but it sounds like a bunch of gobely goop made up by a lawyers and activist judges. I think it’s great that this men and women will have no choice but to find God in prison.
Dempublicents1
01-05-2006, 23:31
Well, I’m not so sure what this establishment clause is but it sounds like a bunch of gobely goop made up by a lawyers and activist judges.

Please, please tell me you are trolling?

The Establishment Clause can be found in the 1st Amendment. Do you think that the Founding Fathers were "lawyers and activist judges" making up "gobely goop"?

I think it’s great that this men and women will have no choice but to find God in prison.

They will still have a choice, as the program is voluntary. But less people will choose to do it if they make it based in one faith only, don't you think?
TypAmericana
01-05-2006, 23:35
Please, please tell me you are trolling?

The Establishment Clause can be found in the 1st Amendment. Do you think that the Founding Fathers were "lawyers and activist judges" making up "gobely goop"?
The Founding Fathers were men of God. They didn't want everybody to become ateists, which is what's going to happen if all these liberal judges aren't removed from power soon.
They will still have a choice, as the program is voluntary. But less people will choose to do it if they make it based in one faith only, don't you think?
Not if it's the right one.
UpwardThrust
01-05-2006, 23:39
The Founding Fathers were men of God. They didn't want everybody to become ateists, which is what's going to happen if all these liberal judges aren't removed from power soon.

Not if it's the right one.
I warn you parodys can get you and your main nation deleted ... it has happened before
Undelia
01-05-2006, 23:44
I warn you parodys can get you and your main nation deleted ... it has happened before
Aye.
Guess I'll cut the shit then. Just feeling a little frustrated today. Meh. Wouldn't want to end up like Drunk Commies.
Free Mercantile States
01-05-2006, 23:47
I've become completely inured to Religious Reich attacks on the Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state, the basic principle of secular governance, the status of America of not being a fundamentalist Christian theocracy....their rabid hounding at the foundations of rational government are almost passe at this point. Nothing from them shocks me anymore.
Undelia
01-05-2006, 23:47
For the record, I find this bullshit to be pretty fucked up. Relgion to deter criminal behavior? Hell, it creates it.
Intangelon
01-05-2006, 23:50
If religion wants to get into this kind of BUSINESS -- and that's what it is, make no mistake -- then they need to pay the gate like everyone else. Hell, the Catholic Church alone could go a long way toward balancing the budget if we just taxed them on their land holdings.

Religion has far too much access to the political process to continue to go untaxed.

*leaps into neo-asbestos suit and waits*
Duntscruwithus
01-05-2006, 23:51
Please, please tell me you are trolling?

After reading T-A's posts, I would say we have a troll onboard.......
Gauthier
01-05-2006, 23:56
One thing i wouldn't like is the taxing of religeons.

Scientology, Televangelism and the Religious Right tends to change people's mind on that position.
Free Mercantile States
01-05-2006, 23:57
If religion wants to get into this kind of BUSINESS -- and that's what it is, make no mistake -- then they need to pay the gate like everyone else. Hell, the Catholic Church alone could go a long way toward balancing the budget if we just taxed them on their land holdings.

Religion has far too much access to the political process to continue to go untaxed.

*leaps into neo-asbestos suit and waits*

Absolutely. The Catholic Church considers not offering communion to a Presidential candidate as a political statement to voters of its denomination, Bible-Belt preachers deliver thinly, if at all, disguised political voting guides from the pulpit, and the religious right led by evangelical Christians hijack every level of the political process, and they still try to claim apolitical amnesty from taxes? HA! Try again!
Gauthier
02-05-2006, 00:03
I've become completely inured to Religious Reich attacks on the Establishment Clause, the separation of church and state, the basic principle of secular governance, the status of America of not being a fundamentalist Christian theocracy....their rabid hounding at the foundations of rational government are almost passe at this point. Nothing from them shocks me anymore.

They're just following their God-given commandment to complete the Pursuit of Truthiness, Biblical Justice, and the Real American Way.
Free Mercantile States
02-05-2006, 00:11
THE REAL AMERICAN WAY

BE ADVISED: The Real American Way (TM) does not allow for the civil or political rights or other aspects of first-class citizenship for groups including but not limited to homosexuals, women, racial and ethnic minorities, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, pagans, scientists, secular humanists, and social or economic liberals. Other possibly excluded groups may include any that do not fall under the heading "18-40 white heterosexual Protestant Republican males."
Anti-Social Darwinism
02-05-2006, 00:29
Be careful how you talk about Republicans. Most of us are moderate and thoughtful. I am appalled at how some extreme right-wing, religious freaks have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of the Republican Party. Just as I am sure that most thinking Democrats are outraged at how some extreme left-wing, talking heads have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of John Kennedy's Democrats.

As to the article: GAAAAAAAH!:eek:
Verdigroth
02-05-2006, 00:38
For the record, I find this bullshit to be pretty fucked up. Relgion to deter criminal behavior? Hell, it creates it.

Sadly enough I agree with you hear...that must mean that the apocalypse is near the gates of hell have opened starting the end of days.

I am fairly spiritual but I don't like the forcing of beliefs upon others. I don't care what you think happens when you die. You can die and settle with God yourself, if you ask I may tell you what is going to happen to you, but I am not going to annoy you over it. If you want to burn burn...I am looking forward to watching some republicans roasting when I get my comfy cloud sofa not to mention the evangicals...wonder if they will scream...happy thoughts.
Gauthier
02-05-2006, 00:39
Be careful how you talk about Republicans. Most of us are moderate and thoughtful. I am appalled at how some extreme right-wing, religious freaks have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of the Republican Party. Just as I am sure that most thinking Democrats are outraged at how some extreme left-wing, talking heads have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of John Kennedy's Democrats.

To this, I'll reply with a rebuttal that's been popularized here on NS General to demonize Muslims as a Borg Collective of religious zealotry, savage backwards barbarism and intolerant hatred: When the moderates as a whole don't speak up and take up a significant stand against the extremists, they're condoning and supporting their agenda and are just as guilty for the crimes.

As to the article: GAAAAAAAH!:eek:

Agreed.
Straughn
02-05-2006, 06:57
It's true that there's no sort of applicable secular method, as atheism strongly resists being defined as a faith, and science falls short when it comes to explaining why people should be moral.

However, I feel very, very wary about anything "streamlined" to set up evangelical protestant ministries, because evangelical protestantism seems to lend itself easily to being hijacked by vocal minorities who are less about the message of Christ (something which is hardly crystal-clear in the first place) than about hatred for people or things which are different.

That's not a damning statement for all evangelical protestants, by the way; I'm certain that the majority of evangelical protestants (heck, the majority of any faith) are good, moral people who do the best they can to get along.

For that matter, one could say the exact same thing about Islam, and even Buddhists aren't all shining pillars of morality (although I have heard good things - I can't recall where, alas - about the teaching of meditation in prisons - does anyone know anything more about that?).

What I'm getting at is that a single faith program is inherently a bad idea. This would be a good idea if it offered multiple faiths, or if prisoners could choose which one they wanted to attend/be instructed in (and I'd be even happier if there were a viable secular alternative, but unfortunately I can't see one).

Maybe we should just support Flying Spaghetti Monsterism for this thing.
Oh, i like you. :fluffle:
As much as i would truly enjoy that, as evidenced by the last thread i initiated, i have to go secular. Arrrh.
Straughn
02-05-2006, 06:59
That is one way of putting it.
One of the right ways (no pun intended) of putting it. :(
Straughn
02-05-2006, 07:00
Ha! All too likely.


Charles W. Colson was one of the major players in the Watergate scandal, a true believer in unlimited executive privilege, a hardcore rightwinger, and a first generation neo-con. Here are some thumbnail sketch bios:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/charles.html

http://www.slate.com/id/77067/

Jeb Bush restored his civil rights (in exception to Florida law regarding felons) and now he's getting back into politics -- rightwing, pro-religion, anti-gay, the usual panoply.
Again, i must humbly thank you. *bows*
Straughn
02-05-2006, 07:14
If religion wants to get into this kind of BUSINESS -- and that's what it is, make no mistake -- then they need to pay the gate like everyone else. Hell, the Catholic Church alone could go a long way toward balancing the budget if we just taxed them on their land holdings.

Religion has far too much access to the political process to continue to go untaxed.

Agreed.
and
Agreed.
No particular flames from me.
Straughn
02-05-2006, 07:16
Absolutely. The Catholic Church considers not offering communion to a Presidential candidate as a political statement to voters of its denomination, Bible-Belt preachers deliver thinly, if at all, disguised political voting guides from the pulpit, and the religious right led by evangelical Christians hijack every level of the political process, and they still try to claim apolitical amnesty from taxes? HA! Try again!
Abso-f*cking-lutely to this post. RAmen to that. *bows*
Straughn
02-05-2006, 07:22
Be careful how you talk about Republicans. Most of us are moderate and thoughtful. I am appalled at how some extreme right-wing, religious freaks have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of the Republican Party. Just as I am sure that most thinking Democrats are outraged at how some extreme left-wing, talking heads have grabbed and destroyed the credibility of John Kennedy's Democrats.

As to the article: GAAAAAAAH!:eek:
This is where you make an honourable distinction and set out a legitimate third party movement. Get us out of this f*cking oroborous, perhaps?
Yes, it is possible, for which i cite my states' current governor candidate, Sarah Palin, who has made the distinction between her republican platform and the obviously f*cked up movement that the GOP is currently involved in.