What is not understood about the wall of separation?

[SoliDeoGloria]

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).

Here's another fact you may want to consider. NCF, as most other prisons, has a government funded Chaplain who holds church services, etc. wouldn't that meet the same criteria people are whinning about? Trust me, there's more going on here than meets the eye.

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?)

That was one issue that people tried to bring up also in court but became a non-issue very quickly due to the fact that participants were allowed to practice other religions while in the program. Just in the class I participated in, there were people who practiced WICCA, Islam, etc.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[lilithu]

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:

From the article:

"On paper, InnerChange was open to any inmate who wanted to take part. The reality on the ground was something else. The program was so saturated with the conservative, biblically literalist form of Christianity favored by Prison Fellowship that members of other faiths found it inhospitable. During the trial, several inmates testified that they found InnerChange impossible to reconcile with their own religious beliefs.

One inmate, Benjamin Burens, who practices a Native American religion, participated in InnerChange for a while, even though he is not a Christian. Burens testified that InnerChange staff pressured him to become a born-again Christian and criticized him for taking part in Native American rituals, labeling them a form of witchcraft. Burens was eventually expelled from the program.

According to the court record, non-evangelical Christians were commonly referred to by InnerChange staff as "unsaved," "lost," "pagan," those "who served the flesh," "of Satan," "sinful" and "of darkness."

This criticism of other faiths even extended to other Christian denominations. As Pratt noted, "Testimony revealed a constant tension between Roman Catholic inmates involved in InnerChange and the chronic problem of InnerChange volunteers criticizing Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.... InnerChange's Field Guide clearly warns that non-Christians and those who desire time to observe faith practices not included in the InnerChange program, e.g., Roman Catholics who wish to attend Mass or Native Americans who wish to participate in the sweat lodge ceremony, may do so only if those observances do not conflict with the InnerChange program requirements."

Pratt found this reliance on conversion clear evidence of InnerChange's sectarian character.

"To anyone well-acquainted with the program -- as are the state Dept. of Corrections management team and the InnerChange staff -- the object of the InnerChange program is to change inmates' behavior through personal conversion to Christianity," he wrote. "InnerChange's position that no one actually is required to convert to pass through the program is mere formalism. Every waking moment in the InnerChange program is devoted to teaching and indoctrinating inmates into the Christian faith."
AU had also raised issues of unequal treatment among inmates, based on their willingness to conform to the evangelical atmosphere of InnerChange. Again Pratt found this argument compelling.

InnerChange inmates enjoyed perks and benefits that are significant to an incarcerated population. The special unit for InnerChange inmates featured private toilet facilities and cells with wooden doors instead of steel. The environment was generally safer, and inmates were entrusted with keys to their own cells. InnerChange inmates had extra contact with their family members and even gathered together to watch movies on weekends.

But InnerChange inmates got an even bigger benefit: access to special classes that made parole much more likely. Treatment classes are a condition of parole in Iowa, and most inmates must wait until they approach their release date to take part in them. InnerChange inmates got the classes earlier, significantly increasing their odds of being granted parole."


It may look all nice and unbiased on paper. Doesn't seem like it was in reality. The establishment clause of the first amendment clearly prohibits any religion getting preferential treatment within a govt institution or as a result of govt funding.

 

[doppelganger]

Here's another fact you may want to consider. NCF, as most other prisons, has a government funded Chaplain who holds church services, etc. wouldn't that meet the same criteria people are whinning about?

The Supreme Court in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) was not bothered by a chaplain hired by the Nebraska legislature to open each legislative session with a prayer. "Chaplains" are often not viewed as being fixed on one particular religion, though certainly many are. And the absense of the presence of any clergy from a prison implicates the Free Exercise clause. As the Round Table on Religion & Social Welfare Policy notes:

Like the military, most prisons keep a full-time chaplain on staff; in such cases, the chaplain is expected to minister to (or coordinate others who would minister to) the religious needs of all prisoners, not solely those of his own denomination. In our judgment, the institution of the prison chaplaincy is within constitutional bounds, because it protects the religious freedom of prisoners without discriminating among them and without the state taking a position on the desirability or efficacy of faith as a rehabilitative instrument. Without such chaplains, the state would effectively be forbidding communal worship and religious guidance, and this effective prohibition might well be thought to violate the prisoners’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

So a prison chaplain typically makes arrangements for each inmate to practice whatever religion they want. Was that your experience?

the doppleganger

 

[doppelganger]

It may look all nice and unbiased on paper. Doesn't seem like it was in reality. The establishment clause of the first amendment clearly prohibits any religion getting preferential treatment within a govt institution or as a result of govt funding.

That could be. From the court's opinion, these weren't factors in the decision. The issue with the keys is touched upon on pages 50-52. If there were evidence of what the article states, it seems like it would bear mention in the court's opinion since such practices would mean the whole program, not just its funding, was unconstitutional. I'm not saying the claims in the article are untrue. They are what they are.

the doppleganger

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

"On paper, InnerChange was open to any inmate who wanted to take part. The reality on the ground was something else. The program was so saturated with the conservative, biblically literalist form of Christianity favored by Prison Fellowship that members of other faiths found it inhospitable. During the trial, several inmates testified that they found InnerChange impossible to reconcile with their own religious beliefs.

One inmate, Benjamin Burens, who practices a Native American religion, participated in InnerChange for a while, even though he is not a Christian. Burens testified that InnerChange staff pressured him to become a born-again Christian and criticized him for taking part in Native American rituals, labeling them a form of witchcraft. Burens was eventually expelled from the program.

I was waiting for you to bring this up. This may be what the article reported but as Paul Harvey would say, "Now here's the rest of the
story...". I didn't do time with this "Burens" guy so I can't really comment on this one alone, but I did, however, do time with other Native American participants of the program, John Flowers, another guy named "Harvey", etc. These guys always participated in Native American rituals, graduated the program with "flying colors" and never once complained about the things this "Burens" guy complained about. I'm almost willing to put a bet that, there's much more to this than was reported in this article, But I'll support that statement very shortly here since I noticed the article comments on something I have very close knowledge about.

This criticism of other faiths even extended to other Christian denominations. As Pratt noted, "Testimony revealed a constant tension between Roman Catholic inmates involved in InnerChange and the chronic problem of InnerChange volunteers criticizing Roman Catholic beliefs and practices.... InnerChange's Field Guide clearly warns that non-Christians and those who desire time to observe faith practices not included in the InnerChange program, e.g., Roman Catholics who wish to attend Mass or Native Americans who wish to participate in the sweat lodge ceremony, may do so only if those observances do not conflict with the InnerChange program requirements."

Outside of the fact that participants knew that this program was a "Biblically based" program before they volunteered to participate in it, here's the history with the "Catholic thing". One of the people who testified in court to be Catholic and not allowed to attend mass was a guy named John Hammers. He was in the same class I was in and was serving a pretty big number. We were even pretty good friends for quite some time. He not only attended mass and confession services, I never witnessed anybody giving him a hard time for being "Catholic" and he never once complained to me about harrassment. After he graduated the program, something interesting happened. When he got moved to general population after graduating the program, he decided to experiment with homosexuality. Being as how sex is prohibited by the Iowa DOC, when he got caught, he was taken to the "hole" and had to undergo the consequences for his actions. The only thing he was ever harrassed for was this incident, not only by inmates who had participated in the program but a lot of other inmates who didn't participate in the program because believe it or not, homosexuality is not very highly revered in prison. The only other practicing "catholics" I know of that were kicked out of the program were people who violated DOC rules or who just wanted to argue all the time. There are many I know of who regularly participated in Catholic services and graduated with "flying colors" and are still devoted Catholics to this day. Chiris Kenline, a good friend of mine, is one who comes to mind right away. Other examples of graduates who practiced other religions I directly know of are James Harrington (Black Muslim), Jeremy Atwood (WICCA), etc. The fact is these people knew that the program was what it was before they volunteered for it and decided to volunteer anyways. There are many other treatment programs offered by the DOC they could've taken, but for various reasons, they decided to volunteer for that specific one.

InnerChange inmates enjoyed perks and benefits that are significant to an incarcerated population. The special unit for InnerChange inmates featured private toilet facilities

ROTFLOL, did they provide pictures of the toilet stalls? I promise you this is not true. As a matter of fact, the other cell houses had more privatized toilet stalls than this. The other cell houses had toilet stalls in in each of the cells. This is not the case in the cell house that IFI used. On top of that, IFI members were not allowed TV's and other privleges that GP inmates were allowed. No wonder this never became a real issue in court, it's complete bullcrap.

The environment was generally safer, and inmates were entrusted with keys to their own cells. InnerChange inmates had extra contact with their family members and even gathered together to watch movies on weekends.

The only reason it was safer was because the inmates were a bit more decent when it came to dealing with each other than in other cell houses because the guards were much more stricter there. As far as the movies go, the GP inmates got to watch movies in their cells provided by the DOC every weekend while the IFI inmates had to watch any movies in a big room because they weren't allowed TV's.

But InnerChange inmates got an even bigger benefit: access to special classes that made parole much more likely. Treatment classes are a condition of parole in Iowa, and most inmates must wait until they approach their release date to take part in them. InnerChange inmates got the classes earlier, significantly increasing their odds of being granted parole."
It may look all nice and unbiased on paper. Doesn't seem like it was in reality. The establishment clause of the first amendment clearly prohibits any religion getting preferential treatment within a govt institution or as a result of govt funding.

Here's a challenge for you. Write the Iowa Parole Board and ask them if anybody got let out early because they participated in IFI:
http://www.bop.state.ia.us/BoardAgenda.asp
This article may look good on paper but the facts certainly don't add up. I know for a fact that I wasn't released early because of my participation in IFI.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

So a prison chaplain typically makes arrangements for each inmate to practice whatever religion they want. Was that your experience?

absolutely not.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[doppelganger]

absolutely not.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

Can you elaborate? Were there religions that would not be allowed or facilitated?

the doppleganger

 

[lilithu]

I was waiting for you to bring this up. This may be what the article reported but as Paul Harvey would say, "Now here's the rest of the
story...".

You have a lot of long explanations. The bottom line is that if there is a program for conservative evangelical Christians in a govt facility then there has to be similar programs available for people of all faith persuasions. Period. It is not good enough to say on paper that the program for conservative evangelical Christians is open to people of other faiths. The govt cannot favor any particular religion. The Supreme Court has been consistent on this. Your program is unconstitutional.

 

[robtex]

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.

I am concuring with this statement. I dont' how much yall have been involved with the system but from my vantage point of having worked there for 2 1/2 years I saw too alarming complications arise from the Christiainzation of our penal system. And when I say system I mean, jails, prision, parole, probation, and court manditated rehabs.

1) The people in the system many times are in there in part, because they don't take responsiblity for their actions. If you were ever in a position to look at any case files you would see, as I have that a large percentage of them have a tendancy to blame their situation on everyone other than themselves. Unfortunatly Chrsitianty has the same central message to it via original sin and the salavation of Christ. In the use of the system the partipants in the system have the "out" of man is inperfect (why this matters is beyond me) and by subscribing to Christianty they can "lean on JC" and Chrsitianty to take a burden off them which is in sharp contrast to the structure of the penal system which is designed for them to substain responsiblty for their actions and consquences of those actions. What this does is send a mixed message to members of the system and it undermines the structure of the legal system by shifting responsbilty from the convicted (or non-contestent depending on the plea) to the religion propogated.

2) By intragrating any religion as a tool for correction in the system the religion has the propoensity to be the benchmark for progression as opposed to the life-style of the partipant. This address the qoute. Put a christian immate in front of a christian parole or probation officer and realize their is an instant bais and applicable resource for the immate to use. The system which is the result of local legislation by the community it is in affect in, has the potential to be circumnavigated and/or adjusted by the commonality of religious beliefs if one is presented as the belief system of a legal system. Not only will Christians be favored in such a system over time but muslims will be have a negative impression and non-theists will have monumental problems in a faith-based legal system. It is ok if one has religion but it should have a neutral impact on the system itself or risk compromising the system that was legislated by representatives of the people of that area.


3) I fear that by christianizing the system (or putting any religion in there) things like supporting the church via csr or going to services is going to be seen over time as a postitive action (as opposed to neutral) by the system in the adjustment of their penal measures. People incarcerated or on parole or probation have a negociation factor in their sentence and the measures of completion. This is a good thing as it adjusts for contingencies and variables as the sentence is carried out. By chrisitianizing this adjustable sentence the inevitable result will be gentlier sentences for christians and harsher ones for non-christians. In a court condition (which is a legal document) if than proposals are layed out which state that if (a) is done (b) will be recipcated by the state. For instance, if one behaves well in prision time may be given back to them or if one does well in probation they may be deemed a strong candidate for early release. By establishing a Christian agenda in the legal system religious freedom will be a joke for those in the system and faith-based ideas will be a determinent for length and severity of sentence.

4) funding and church partipation is inevitable an intragrated system of church and state. For starters, religions don't pay taxes on money they make yet many if not most are run as a busines as opposed to a non-profit business. In the last paragraph Bob (Pah) qouted in the op Early is qouted as saying "now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisions". What he and those who agree likely mean is they will take the opportunity for the Churches to interact with the prisions for financial and spirtual gains. If we chrisitainize the prisions/jails it means we will need Christian leaders, who will be paid many times to faciliate the new agenda. To break down for you it goes like this:

We pay taxes to support the system (prision, parole, jail, probation, court public defenders, state attorney's legistaltion ect)

churches don't pay taxes

churches come in for profit (and many will do this for free but many will do this for profit) to adminster a christianized legal system. They are payed a profit by tax dollars that came from you and me and that they do not have to pay taxes on. Now go find a person who runs a anger management program that is contracted with the county or a psychologists who contracts with the country and tell them its a good idea if churches compete with them for a businesss they financed by themselves that will not be taxed while they will be taxed and whose faith it the measurement of success and see what kinda reaction you get. Go ahead, find a psychologists or anger mangement person who has a county contact and run the idea of a church leader competing with their business based on faith in a non-taxable envirorment and see post on here how that goes for you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I hate knowing that I work 40+ hours a week, and my tax money is being used to teach prisoners a religion that I have a few issues with.

I do know my uncle is in a similiar program. I just wonder if his new found faith will last or faulter after hes let out in November.

 

[doppelganger]

Prisoners are legally entitled by the Free Exercise Clause to practice, voluntarily, any religion they choose. That right is expanded and protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) . So the government cannot legally keep religion out of prisons.

However, the government is prohibited from paying for any particular religion by the Establishment Clause.

If the program acts as the article suggests - with pressures and incentives to adopt the particular Evangelical Protestant faith of InnerChange, then the whole program violates the Free Exercise clause and the RLUIPA (and possibly the Establishment Clause). If it doesn't, then it only violates the Establishment Clause because of the funding issue.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but there was an important opinion from the Supreme Court (Cutter v. Wilkinson) upholding the protections of the RLUIPA just last year in a case involving the religious rights of Wiccans and Satanists among other "non-mainstream" faiths.

The State of Ohio sought to challenge the RLUIPA on the grounds that by protecting relgion in general over non-belief it was offensive to the Establishment Clause. You can read the Court's opinion here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-9877.ZO.html

the doppleganger

 

[robtex]

I do know my uncle is in a similiar program. I just wonder if his new found faith will last or faulter after hes let out in November.

More importantly than if his faith is lost is what is the opportunity cost of adminstering faith as part of his rehablitation. Understand in jail or prision X amount of hours are allocated to rehabilitation. In probation and parole X is usually 10 % of hours of the work week (4) per week. This time inside or outside is currently in a secular system divided up into education (that can be applied to a job) csr (or chores in the correctional facility if applicable), and rehabilitation requirements neccessary for release. For instance a person in prision for manslaughter for a DWI may be required either while incarcerated or later on parole to take a class on sobering up.

Opportunity costs in economics is what is given up to achive a gain. For instance, if I have wood and cut invest in machinery to cut them up into fence posts for resale than it could be postulated that my opportunity costs is giving up the pulping of the wood to sell as mulch. Or machinarey to convert it to paper.

Applying this concept to the penal system understand that only a percentage of their time is allocated for post system life and other time is theirs that is free to use in any non-illegal activity they desire that does not infringe on prision/jail parole/probation rules.

If a religious system is included in their rehab than another is sacrifced in its place. An anger management course is dropped or a dwi awareness course is eliminated. The time is already allocated and is almost always maxed so that if one program is added another will likely need to be deleted.

Further understand there is no prohibition in any jail or prision parole or probation system in America on the study or practice of Christianty. So what the people who proposed a faith-based penal system are really advocating is the sacrifice of a educational course in exchange for a religious history course knowing full well that

1) many of the partipants can and will practice and study christianty in their free time as it is not prohibited

2) the teachings of their religion will not be forced on non-partipants (who are a minority in the penal system).

What the opening qoute is saying is that God is being removed from prisions. That is flat out lie. If their religion was being removed from prisions than the study of christianty would be prohibted which it is not. Instead what they are asking (demanding) is that christianty be force-fed to the people in the system at the sacrifce of a rehab program that is already being allocated with tax dollars (and sometimes their own money in the case of probation/parole) that is congruent with the crime they are in the system for.

 

[robtex]

Prisoners are legally entitled by the Free Exercise Clause to practice, voluntarily, any religion they choose. That right is expanded and protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) . So the government cannot legally keep religion out of prisons.

However, the government is prohibited from paying for any particular religion by the Establishment Clause.

If the program acts as the article suggests - with pressures and incentives to adopt the particular Evangelical Protestant faith of InnerChange, then the whole program violates the Free Exercise clause and the RLUIPA (and possibly the Establishment Clause). If it doesn't, then it only violates the Establishment Clause because of the funding issue.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but there was an important opinion from the Supreme Court (Cutter v. Wilkinson) upholding the protections of the RLUIPA just last year in a case involving the religious rights of Wiccans and Satanists among other "non-mainstream" faiths.

The State of Ohio sought to challenge the RLUIPA on the grounds that by protecting relgion in general over non-belief it was offensive to the Establishment Clause. You can read the Court's opinion here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-9877.ZO.html

the doppleganger

Good post. In regards to the first few paragraphs I fear with the current agenda of christianization of the legal system RLUIPA is deemed as a starting point for the theocrates who want to intragrate their religion into mandiated prisioner time. At this point financial compensation may not be on the table but rest assured it is a priority amoung the religious institutions, many whom view their job as a commissioned positions (aka tithing). If the prisoners in their free time, (aka free of adminstration) want to read from the bible by themselves on in a group they have the freedom to do that. There isn't much need for religious leaders, who do earn a salaries for a non-profit organziation that does make money, to be in a prision or jail if there wasn't a foreseeable economic gain from it.

I have to read more on the act presented but I fear that the even with the act in place the goal by a number organizations including the one of this thread is to use it as a tool to get in and than renegociate the financial considerations of such a legistation.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Can you elaborate? Were there religions that would not be allowed or facilitated?

Well, In 2002 during what I called the mysterious money problems that miraculously disappeared(I elaborated on this here:http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36827 ), the Chaplain was laid off and religions were still facilitated clearly showing that it wasn't the Chaplain but rather NCF that facilitated them. The Chaplain wasn't involved in anything besides his church services. On top of that, for some reason we bumped heads on theological grounds although he never made it clear what his problem with me was. This was evidenced by his refusal to allow me to read the Christian Research Journal which I had set up for him to recieve after I couldn't afford to recieve them anymore. So the idea that Chaplains "facilitate" other religions is really nonexistant in practice. Besides that, he acted more like a guard than anything else but I'll leave that alone for now.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

If a religious system is included in their rehab than another is sacrifced in its place. An anger management course is dropped or a dwi awareness course is eliminated. The time is already allocated and is almost always maxed so that if one program is added another will likely need to be deleted...
So what the people who proposed a faith-based penal system are really advocating is the sacrifice of a educational course in exchange for a religious history course

This statement can't be supported/proven at least in this case. As a matter of fact, NCF had no major treatment programs like Clarinda, Oakdale, Mount Pleasant, etc.. Since this court case, NCF has decided to implement one. On top of that, from what I have experienced with government claims of monetary issues (see above post), I would be extremely suspicious of anything the government claimed when it comes to money. Another fact to consider is that when it comes to treatment programs, The DOC/Parole Board has to approve of the course. Becuase of this, for example, IFI had to adopt secular style treatment programs in order to gain the DOC/Parole Board's approval. If they didn't then the program wasn't very prgmatic in a secular sense and wouldn't have even been considered as a "treatment/rehabilitation" program and inmates would have to go to other treatment programs in order to meet Parole Board requirements.

Instead what they are asking (demanding) is that christianty be force-fed to the people in the system at the sacrifce of a rehab program that is already being allocated with tax dollars (and sometimes their own money in the case of probation/parole) that is congruent with the crime they are in the system for.

This is just as much a supperimposed lie as you are claiming the OP's quote is. What is enforced over and over again is that this program is a voluntary program unlike the "secular" programs the DOC offer and force upon inmates which adopt all sorts of philosophies that can easily be considered religious at worst and agnostic at least. I also elaborate on this in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...ad.php?t=36827

Sincerely,
SoliDeogloria

 

[doppelganger]

Well, In 2002 during what I called the mysterious money problems that miraculously disappeared(I elaborated on this here:http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36827 ), the Chaplain was laid off and religions were still facilitated clearly showing that it wasn't the Chaplain but rather NCF that facilitated them. The Chaplain wasn't involved in anything besides his church services.

So the chaplain is paid by the state to be there just for the purpose of presenting Christianity?

If so, then I agree with you that the prison might have another Establishment Clause problem.

 

[lilithu]

So the chaplain is paid by the state to be there just for the purpose of presenting Christianity?

If so, then I agree with you that the prison might have another Establishment Clause problem.

I dono. We currently pay chaplains in the military. And we still have paid chaplains come in to lead Congress in prayer before each session. It always seemed to me that there might be some EC violations there and yet we've been doing it for ages with no one filing suit.

 

[doppelganger]

I dono. We currently pay chaplains in the military. And we still have paid chaplains come in to lead Congress in prayer before each session. It always seemed to me that there might be some EC violations there and yet we've been doing it for ages with no one filing suit.

Except that normally, as I noted above, "Chaplains" are there to facilitate whatever religion someone wants to practice, even if it isn't one they personally share. That means if someone is a Wiccan, for example, the Chaplain, even if she is a Protestant Christian, makes arrangements for that person to practice Wicca. The more they become simply a representative of one particular religion, the closer you get to EC problems.

The prayer before legislative sessions tends to be fairly non-specific, enough so that the Supreme Court wasn't bothered by it in Marsh. Personally, I think it should be unconstitutional, too. But that's not my decision. Our Constitution leaves that to the courts.

 

[lilithu]

Except that normally, as I noted above, "Chaplains" are there to facilitate whatever religion someone wants to practice, even if it isn't one they personally share. That means if someone is a Wiccan, for example, the Chaplain, even if she is a Protestant Christian, makes arrangements for that person to practice Wicca. The more they become simply a representative of one particular religion, the closer you get to EC problems.

I think that's kind of a fudge. Not accusing you of that; I understand that these are the court's decisions. But if in your example I was in the military and Wiccan, how can a Protestant chaplain help me when I am suffering from spiritual angst after my first combat experience? Yes, the chaplain can give me a space where I can set up an altar, but can a Protestant chaplain, no matter how well intentioned, speak to me on my terms when I am struggling over having killed a man?

The prayer before legislative sessions tends to be fairly non-specific, enough so that the Supreme Court wasn't bothered by it in Marsh. Personally, I think it should be unconstitutional, too. But that's not my decision. Our Constitution leaves that to the courts.

Yeah, it's "non-specific" if you are of the Judeo-Christian tradition. If doesn't sound so non-specific if Buddhist or humanist and some guy is talking about "God" or "Lord." I personally have no problem with God-talk being a theist myself, but I don't understand the logic of letting it be how we start the sessions where we're supposedly making secular laws.

Anyway, my point is that we're not entirely consistent, so I'm not sure that a paid chaplain in a prison would be deemded unconstitutional, especially if on paper he's there for everyone.

I have enjoyed the contributions from you and our man Robtex btw.

 

[JerryL]

I think that's kind of a fudge. Not accusing you of that; I understand that these are the court's decisions. But if in your example I was in the military and Wiccan, how can a Protestant chaplain help me when I am suffering from spiritual angst after my first combat experience? Yes, the chaplain can give me a space where I can set up an altar, but can a Protestant chaplain, no matter how well intentioned, speak to me on my terms when I am struggling over having killed a man?

I have a US chaplin's guidebook around here somewhere, and it does discuss wiccan traditions.

The bigger question is "does the fact that the chaplin is prodistent represent a government endorsement of prodistentism, or Christianity, over other religions?". I'd tend to say "no".

Yeah, it's "non-specific" if you are of the Judeo-Christian tradition. If doesn't sound so non-specific if Buddhist or humanist and some guy is talking about "God" or "Lord." I personally have no problem with God-talk being a theist myself, but I don't understand the logic of letting it be how we start the sessions where we're supposedly making secular laws.

I agree with you there. I think publicaly sponsored benedictions are an intermingling of church and state. I think the reformations of the 1950s (adding "god" to the bulk of the money and the pledge) were similarly intermingling promotion.