What is not understood about the wall of separation?

[Pah]

Thwarted

By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted August 28, 2006.

A Bush-funded prison initiative that fast-tracked parole for Christian converts has been swatted down in the federal courts

http://www.alternet.org/rights/40324/

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt didn't mince words. Officials at Iowa's Newton Correctional Facility had become, he wrote, far too entangled with religion by establishing a special wing for Prison Fellowship's InnerChange program. InnerChange, Pratt declared, is suffused with religion.

"The religion classes are not objective inquiries into the religious life, comparable to an adult study or college course, offered for the sake of discussing and learning universal secular, civic values or truths," Pratt wrote. "They are, instead, overwhelmingly devotional in nature and intended to indoctrinate InnerChange inmates into the Evangelical Christian belief system."

The day after a federal court struck down a taxpayer-supported evangelical Christian program in an Iowa prison, Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, issued a press statement. He was not pleased.

"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused

.Get while thy're young and/or impressionable. It is a captive audiance under state control

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Get while thy're young and/or impressionable. It is a captive audiance under state control

It is a voluntary program that I happened to participate in while incarcerated. I could tell you a lot more about it then the media could. All you had to do was ask. Besides that, Nice find. I was wondering if anybody would bring it up. Do you really want to go here? I thought the government protected freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If you knew the real reasons this even went to court, you might be embarrased that you brought it up.

Sincerely,
SoliDeogloria

 

[doppelganger]

"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused.

I can't help but think that if "God" were ever actually allowed into America's prisons, all the convicts would be set free, and there'd no longer be any reason to have prisons.

the doppleganger

 

[PureX]

A Bush-funded prison initiative that fast-tracked parole for Christian converts has been swatted down in the federal courts ...

Prisoners can't vote. He needs to get them out on the street before the next elections. *smile*

 

[JerryL]

It is a voluntary program that I happened to participate in while incarcerated.

It was shot down as government-funded religion.

I thought the government protected freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

It protects you from government sponsored religion (see? I can underline too)

Personally, I'm all for spiritual teachings in jail. I am not for the tax-payers funding it.

 

[Willamena]

"The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons," Earley groused

God was in jail?

 

[doppelganger]

As with the Kentridge High School case, if there's interest in discussing this, rather than speculating about the facts or the arguments at issue in the case, I can provide a copy of the original opinion from Judge Pratt. It's loooong (140 pages).

the doppleganger

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

It was shot down as government-funded religion

And here's the actual history behind that. It was not always that way. The only thing the government was funding originally was the inmates care and guards. While not all the IFI people agreed with this, including myself, a few people decided to go to the state legislature and ask for more money. When it was granted (even with the support of certain federal politicians), all of a sudden, people felt the need to bring it to court. While the program still exists and is funded very largely by private donations, all this does is prove that this court case has to do with nothing more than money, plain and simple, not "separation of church and state". The most angry people about the program have always been the Guards and their Union out of fear of privatization of prisons and taking money away from these overpayed babysitters.

It protects you from government sponsored religion (see? I can underline too)

Personally, I'm all for spiritual teachings in jail. I am not for the tax-payers funding it.

Beleive it or not, so am I and many other people involved with this program. The problem is they are turning this into something else because of a few "bad apples" who are going to ruin it for everyone involved. Besides that, thanks for bringing up the real reason behind this court case.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Green Gaia]

Personally, I'm all for spiritual teachings in jail. I am not for the tax-payers funding it.

I agree. I don't think anyone would deny the positive influence faith and religion can have on an inmate's life. But I don't feel my tax money should be going to further someone else's religious agenda.

The UUA/CLF* has a prison ministry program, as do many individual congregations. All are funded by our own giving, no tax money. If the evangelical Christians want to spread their message to the prisoners, they should do the same. No one is denying them entrance to the prisons or acess to the prisoners.


*Church of the Larger Fellowship

 

[Faint]

How did this "fast track parole"? Were "christian" inmates let out earlier than non-converts? This reminds me SO much of Clockwork Orange--"I just want to be good". Praise Jesus! Let me out of here--I want to spread The Word! Haha...suckers.

Government-funded religious anything is wrong.

 

[doppelganger]

And here's the actual history behind that. It was not always that way. The only thing the government was funding originally was the inmates care and guards. While not all the IFI people agreed with this, including myself, a few people decided to go to the state legislature and ask for more money. When it was granted (even with the support of certain federal politicians), all of a sudden, people felt the need to bring it to court.

You say that as though that's an improper motive. Of course, the Constitution prohibits the Establishment of religion. So if the courts deem this sort of program to be state-sponsored religion when it's paid for with citizens' tax dollars, then it is unconstitutional. While in a sense it's about money, I would expect that the bigger picture for those bringing the case is that they don't want their tax dollars to go to spreading a particular religious creed. If it were completely privately funded, that would be a different matter.

** SEE NEXT POST ** The court noted that while the program generally appears to be voluntary and inmates signed a consent form indicating that they understood their participation would not guarantee them any better treatment before the parole board, some inmates testified that they were nevertheless promised shorter sentences or favorable parole terms by participating.

Was anything like that told to you before you participated?**

the doppleganger

 

[doppelganger]

The court noted that while the program generally appears to be voluntary and inmates signed a consent form indicating that they understood their participation would not guarantee them any better treatment before the parole board, some inmates testified that they were nevertheless promised shorter sentences or favorable parole terms by participating.

Was anything like that told to you before you participated?

the doppleganger

D'oh! I take that back. I read that wrong. They did not say they were promised favorable treatment.



the doppleganger

 

[PureX]

You say that as though that's an improper motive. Of course, the Constitution prohibits the Establishment of religion. So if the courts deem this sort of program to be state-sponsored religion when it's paid for with citizens' tax dollars, then it is unconstitutional. While in a sense it's about money, I would expect that the bigger picture for those bringing the case is that they don't want their tax dollars to go to spreading a particular religious creed. If it were completely privately funded, that would be a different matter.

The court noted that while the program generally appears to be voluntary and inmates signed a consent form indicating that they understood their participation would not guarantee them any better treatment before the parole board, some inmates testified that they were nevertheless promised shorter sentences or favorable parole terms by participating.

Was anything like that told to you before you participated?

the doppleganger

I'm glad someone is questioning the real motives, here. Bush has a track record of using tax money to pay conservative Christian leaders and organizations for getting their followers out to vote for republicans. And this looks to me like just another example of the same game. The only twist is that in this case they're also "getting out the vote" by getting the "Christians" out of prison, early (prisoners are not allowed to vote).

I swear, there is nothing that the Bush/Rove evil duo won't stoop to, to gain and maintain they and their republican cronies in power.

 

[Pah]

It certainly is funded by the government if facility and staff resources are not re-imbursed by private agencies or individuals.

 

[JerryL]

The only thing the government was funding originally was the inmates care and guards. While not all the IFI people agreed with this, including myself, a few people decided to go to the state legislature and ask for more money. When it was granted (even with the support of certain federal politicians), all of a sudden, people felt the need to bring it to court.

So no one had a problem with the program, people only had a problem with government sponsorship of the program? That would be consistant with both my personal opinion and the law.

While the program still exists and is funded very largely by private donations, all this does is prove that this court case has to do with nothing more than money, plain and simple, not "separation of church and state".

I don't see any support for your conclusion. The program does not violate church-state, government sponsorship of the program does. The fact that there's no opposition to the program privately funded would seem to clearly indicate that it is a church-state issue.

The most angry people about the program have always been the Guards and their Union out of fear of privatization of prisons and taking money away from these overpayed babysitters.

http://www.geocities.com/three_strikes_legal/prison_guard_union.html

In the most expensive state in the nation, the starting pay for spending your day surrounded by convicted felons that would love to see you dead is $33,000. I won't do it for that.

Beleive it or not, so am I and many other people involved with this program. The problem is they are turning this into something else because of a few "bad apples" who are going to ruin it for everyone involved.

Since the court case did not affect the program (as it exists through private funding), It's not clear to me what your objection to this decision is.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Prisoners can't vote. He needs to get them out on the street before the next elections. *smile*

I'm glad someone is questioning the real motives, here. Bush has a track record of using tax money to pay conservative Christian leaders and organizations for getting their followers out to vote for republicans. And this looks to me like just another example of the same game. The only twist is that in this case they're also "getting out the vote" by getting the "Christians" out of prison, early (prisoners are not allowed to vote).

I swear, there is nothing that the Bush/Rove evil duo won't stoop to, to gain and maintain they and their republican cronies in power.

Right, so he managed to sneak "his" program in a state that has a democratic Governer (Vilsack) who is so anti-bush he was chosen to give a rebuttle to one of Bush's addressing the nation speeches. BTW, Governers have the final say in anything that has to do with state run corrections, parole, etc. and until Vilsack had proposed signing a bill allowing Iowan fellons to vote they couldn't but when he did a couple of years ago, all the republicans in the legislature tried taking him to court over it to get it undone. If this is such a "bush" thing, try figuring that one out for me will ya?

Was anything like that told to you before you participated?**

I was never promised anything like that although I know some inmates who claim that they were when the program began. The interesting thing about that is that being as how it is an 18 month program, some inmantes ended up staying longer than they would've if they had not went through the program because the parole board would tell them that they had to finish treatment before they were released. This is reallly a nonissue.

It certainly is funded by the government if facility and staff resources are not re-imbursed by private agencies or individuals.

No more was funded then if there wasn't a program there. The only thing funded by the government was the cell house, guards salaries, and inmate care which was already there. The program's staff and resources were funded privately. What sparked this was since NCF actually had two facilities (one medium security and one minimum security), the program tried to get the state to allow them to expand the program to the minimum security camp(down the hill). Once the state legislature allowed it, Guards and their union threw a bigger hissy fit then they already were and have turned this into something it isn't.

So no one had a problem with the program, people only had a problem with government sponsorship of the program? That would be consistant with both my personal opinion and the law.

reffer to my response to Pah's post above please.

I don't see any support for your conclusion. The program does not violate church-state, government sponsorship of the program does. The fact that there's no opposition to the program privately funded would seem to clearly indicate that it is a church-state issue.

Here's what I'm going to attempt to do. Being as how the guy who runs the Iowa program now was my teacher when I went through it(Dan Kingery), I'm going to try to get him in here to straighten out the facts on this. I'm going to try to get others who are very much involved in this also. Now, I've tried to get them in here before but being as how they are obviously pretty busy, they have yet to show up but this may be a motivation for them. I can't make any promises but I will do my best.

In the most expensive state in the nation, the starting pay for spending your day surrounded by convicted felons that would love to see you dead is $33,000. I won't do it for that.

Right, because all convicted felons want to do is hurt more people so they can indefinetely spend the rest of their lives incarcerated (lol). When you become a convicted felon qualifying you to be able to trully state what convicted felons would "love to see" or do, let me know.

Since the court case did not affect the program (as it exists through private funding), It's not clear to me what your objection to this decision is.

My objection has more to do with the true motivations of those involved in this case. I promise you guys that this has very little to do with what the media is making it out to be which should be proven by the fact that the program is still in existence.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[doppelganger]

My objection has more to do with the true motivations of those involved in this case. I promise you guys that this has very little to do with what the media is making it out to be which should be proven by the fact that the program is still in existence.

I've now read the court's whole opinion, and the court case, regardless of what "the media" may be making it out to be, is about separation of church and state and specifically the use of government funds for this program. There's no indication of any other reason for invalidating this program in the court's opinion.

Regardless of the "motives" for calling the program out as unconstitutional, it does seem, nevertheless, to be unconstitutional (at least one federal judge thinks so anyway).

the doppleganger

 

[lilithu]

Personally, I'm all for spiritual teachings in jail. I am not for the tax-payers funding it.

Given that jails are tax-payer funded, wouldn't anything that happened in jail be tax-payer funded as well?

I have no problem with people being taught Christianity in jail, as long as it's completely voluntary (which means no social pressure as well). And also as long other religions are offered as well. If you're going to teach Christianity, then if any inmate wants to learn about any religion, that information must be made available to him or her. (How well do you think that would fly?)

What I do have major problems with is the idea that Christian converts would be fast-tracked for parole. How could anyone in their right mind think this is not a violation of the establishment clause of our first amendment?

 

[doppelganger]

What I do have major problems with is the idea that Christian converts would be fast-tracked for parole. How could anyone in their right mind think this is not a violation of the establishment clause of our first amendment?

To be clear, while the news reports about the case are suggesting that this program would "fast track" its participants, the court does not say that anywhere in the opinion. To the contrary, the court says participants weren't promised parole or shorter sentences, they signed a form indicating that they understood that, and the data did not show that the programs participants were given any favorable treatment by the parole board, though key individuals on the parole board were also behind pushing this program. (see page 53 and FN26)

The issue was and is just the funding of the program, as the court's conclusion indicates:

Conceivably, a private choice program could be set up by disassociating all state aid to InnerChange through an arrangement that would mean InnerChange and Prison Fellowship would offer an off-site program while incurring all the costs of programming, i.e., building, salaries, supplies, and
equipment. This remedy is too broad and is one already rejected by InnerChange and Prison Fellowship in response to the state’s initial request for a proposal for non-compensated rehabilitation services. The Plaintiffs have a right to not fund, or be discriminated against by, state-sponsored
religion. The remedy to that right is to cease funding, and possibly order restitution, not to order the Defendants to enter a completely new contractual agreement.

Accordingly, the InnerChange treatment program is hereby permanently enjoined from further operation at the Newton Facility, or any other institution within the Iowa Dept. of Corrections, so long as it is supported by government funding. The Director of the Dept. of Corrections shall make
arrangements, within a reasonable period of time not to exceed sixty (60) days, for the removal of InnerChange employees from the Newton Facility consistent with inmate safety and other correctional needs.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] http://s6.quicksharing.com/v/4672225/prison_fellowship_ministries.pdf.html[/FONT]

the doppleganger

 

[michel]

Thwarted

By Rob Boston, Church and State. Posted August 28, 2006.

A Bush-funded prison initiative that fast-tracked parole for Christian converts has been swatted down in the federal courts

http://www.alternet.org/rights/40324/

.Get while thy're young and/or impressionable. It is a captive audiance under state control

Well, that seems to be the way America is run (Politics in tandem with religion); presumably, that is the majority wish.

If you want a change, you need to voice your thoughts, and try to "change the system".