Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country.
Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes an even more distorted public characterization of evangelicals.
According to a recent critic, the belief held by evangelicals and Prison Fellowship (PF) in the "substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus," reflects "a legalistic understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, [which] is not shared by many Christians." So much for the central tenet of every historic creed and confession of the Christian church.
Where is this critique—in The New York Times? No, it's the finding of U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in deciding on June 2 the lawsuit against PF brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The judge declared unconstitutional the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, a program started by PF.
Startlingly, the judge devoted a dozen pages to analyzing evangelicalism and PF's statement of faith, apparently determined to separate evangelicals from other Christians. Evangelicalism, he wrote, is "quite distinct from other self-described Christian faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and Greek Orthodoxy." It is also "distinct from other … Christian denominations, such as Lutheran, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian."
Evangelical Christianity, he found, tends to be "anti-sacramental," downplaying "baptism, holy communion or Eucharist, marriage, [and] ordination" as "appropriate ways to interact or meet with God." (The charge of downplaying baptism will surprise my 20 million fellow Baptists.) Moreover, we are "contemptuous" of Roman Catholic practices, a conclusion sure to amuse my colleagues with Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
To sum up: Evangelicals are a fringe cult inherently discriminatory, coercive, and antagonistic to other Christians.
Ironically, just days after the judge's decision, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons reported a desperate need in prisons for "highly structured programs which reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and lower recidivism rates after release."
This is precisely what InnerChange does. It has a proven record of rehabilitation—8 percent recidivism for graduates, according to a University of Pennsylvania study of a similar program in Texas. This compares with more than 60 percent recidivism nationally. The commission understands the urgency of these programs, because this year, 600,000 prisoners will be released. Within three years, more than two-thirds will be re-arrested.
Bad enough that the judge ordered closed a program that has proven successful, imperiling thousands of faith-based programs. Even worse, he expanded the Supreme Court precedent in Lemon v. Kurtzman. A careful reading of his opinion leads to the conclusion that even if state funds are not involved, any close government cooperation with "pervasively sectarian" groups is unconstitutional. Such a broad standard could easily be applied to church services or evangelistic events not only in prisons, but also in hospitals, military bases, or any government facility.
But the most alarming question is why the judge chose to write a sociological analysis of evangelicalism—something I've never seen before in any case. And why would he so inaccurately characterize evangelicals as a fringe cult? After all, we make up between 33 and 40 percent of the American population, drawing from scores of denominations, including many millions of Catholics.
Whatever the reason, by distinguishing evangelicals from all other Christian groups, Judge Pratt supported his finding that we discriminate and coerce conversions—despite the fact that every inmate testifying in the trial denied any coercion. InnerChange is voluntary; at any time, inmates can drop out. Many participants are not Christians.
Think of the consequences if this definition survives on appeal—enshrining in federal law a definition of evangelicals as a narrow, mean-spirited minority. This ruling could be cited in cases where pastors publicly denounce homosexuality or pray in Jesus' name on public property. What will prevent a court from deciding what is and is not legitimate theology, according to the trendiest, most politically correct standards?"
The future of Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program, and other faith-based social services, are in the hands of an appeals court."
"Last month's federal court decision declaring unconstitutional a prison ministry run by Prison Fellowship has placed the status of other faith-based initiatives in question. Fallout for other Christian social services is limited for now while Prison Fellowship appeals the ruling. The appeals process could reach the Supreme Court.
• Related articles and links
In 1999, the state of Iowa partnered with InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a biblically based rehabilitation program designed by Prison Fellowship (PF), to reduce recidivism rates. Inmates from nine state prisons are eligible to apply for a transfer into the two- to three-year program.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt issued his verdict in a 140-page decision following a three-year trial that included a personal visit to the facilities of the disputed program. He ordered InnerChange to disband within 60 days and return about $1.5 million in funding it had received from the state of Iowa.
PF president Mark Earley said the organization is preparing to post bond and file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he is confident the judgment will be overturned. PF says that advocates of InnerChange and its upcoming appeal include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Rick Warren.
Earley said Pratt overstepped his constitutional bounds by ruling the program unconstitutional even if it accepted no state funds. Earley said the judge ignored the voluntary nature of InnerChange, which allows inmates to quit without punishment. "Based on this judge's ruling, the only way to improve this program is to move it out of the prison," said Earley. "And there are not many escapees that we can minister to."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed the lawsuit in 2003 on behalf of inmates who said InnerChange discriminated against non-Christians. "It certainly makes sense that Christians want to help prisoners," said AU executive director Barry Lynn. "What does not make sense is for the state to pay. The government simply cannot support and promote programs that are essentially religious efforts to provide service and convert people to a particular religion at the same time."
Secular service, faith-based approach
InnerChange embraces a transformative—rather than therapeutic—model that was developed by Charles Colson. Inmates who participate in InnerChange can attend Bible studies and worship services along with non-religious classes such as substance abuse counseling, and academic and life skills training.
In 1997, when President George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he oversaw the introduction of InnerChange in his home state.
PF leaders met with President Bush in the White House in 2003 to discuss the results of a University of Pennsylvania study that concluded InnerChange graduates were half as likely as non-participants to be reincarcerated within two years of their release.
But when the study sample was broadened to include both graduates and those who dropped out of the program, InnerChange participants were reincarcerated at the same rate as the control group that did not participate in any rehabilitation program. (The program has a 58 percent dropout rate.)
After meeting with PF, Bush told then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to look into the possibility of implementing InnerChange in federal prisons. Bush also proposed a $400 million, four-year initiative to reduce recidivism in his 2004 State of the Union address.
The Bureau of Prisons is currently running a multi-faith rehabilitation program in five federal prisons, but it has temporarily withdrawn its request to implement a single-faith rehabilitation program in six federal prisons, for which $3 million had been appropriated.
Separating out the sectarian
Charles Haynes, senior scholar of the First Amendment Center, believes the InnerChange case is "the most significant case to date" for faith-based initiatives, because it may lead to legislation in Congress that will mandate additional oversight. Haynes says state authorities should perform "audits" to make sure faith-based programs are not using state money for sectarian purposes.
"Right now, there are a lot of religious organizations that fall into this gray area," Haynes said. "There are programs where it is really difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is the religious and what is the secular part of the program."
The state of Iowa funded 40 percent of the InnerChange program. Those funds paid for InnerChange's designated "non-sectarian" expenses such as office supplies, an employee appreciation dinner, and 82 percent of the program director's salary.
InnerChange programs in Arkansas—dedicated one day before the Iowa ruling—and Texas are privately funded, while programs in Kansas and Minnesota receive some state funding. About 1,100 inmates are currently enrolled in InnerChange programs.
Earley said that the recent ruling strikes a blow to the religious liberty of inmates and emphasized that Muslims, Wiccans, and Druids have all graduated from the program, which does not require inmates to convert to Christianity.
"Governments don't have the money or the willpower to provide rehabilitative services for prisoners that work," Earley said. "By definition, their programs are secular. If they are denied the opportunity to partner with faith-based organizations, we are in for a darker future when it comes to the prison system in America.""
First off, the judge should have kept his 'comprehensive comparative analysis' of different Christian denominations and rendering of evangelicals out of his ruling.
That said, I believe that he is correct as to the unconstitutionality of this particular government support of faith-based programs in tax supported prisons. Ie., religious beliefs and doctrine has no place in government sponsored operations such as this.
I'm not so sure. I think it would be just as wrong to disqualify the program BECAUSE of its religious content as it would be to disqualify the program for not having any religious content. I think it's an interesting constitutional question. It would be wrong for the state to require people to go through that program, but to penalize them for choosing that program over another one would be just as much a violation of the constitution.
And I hope it goes without saying that the judge has no right whatsoever to assess a particular movement's compatibility with Christianity.
..... no regard for what works.... HEY "your honor" How bout we buy all the houses in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and let them move in with you and all yours??? Then you can render aid, comfort, your property, wife and children to rehabilitate them.... IDIOTS
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."
Later in the ruling, Pratt observed, "For all practical purposes, the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one of its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates. There are no adequate safeguards present, nor could there be, to ensure that state funds are not being directly spent to indoctrinate Iowa inmates."
The InnerChange program was given the prison's "honor unit," which had been used to house the best-behaved inmates. Those inmates were dumped back into the general population. In their place, about 200 inmates took possession of the wing and began receiving religious instruction around the clock.
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."
I saw nothing in the (long) article about a ruling that evangelicals are unconstitutional. But a lot on a tax-payer funded religious organization who's only purpose in the prison was to recruit new members.
And why Prison Fellowship really wants to be in that prison (besides recruiting convicts to their cult):
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.
Earley's analysis of judicial decisions dealing with religion and public schools was widely off the mark, but he had good reason to be upset about the recent ruling on public funds for inmate indoctrination. His organization, Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by ex-Watergate felon Charles Colson, has been sponsoring the Iowa program for three years. If the ruling stands up on appeal, not only will Earley's group have to shut down the program, it will be required to repay the state of Iowa more than $1.5 million in public support it has received during that time.
1.5 Million is a lot of money. That's 1/2 million per year.
Let me see, would I want to be paid 1/2 million per year to recruit new members to my cult?
****Abigail here - using the upstairs puter :) ************
Thanks, GT, for posting the other side of the story. Working in the legal field, I prefer to read the actual Opinion written by the Judge or Justices, to form my own opinion. Editorials tend to slant things toward whatever agenda they are trying to further. I still have no final opinion in this case, because I haven't read the official Opinion.
Which has a better success rate, "faith based" groups or "secular groups"?
The answer to that question should be the direction of where tax dollars go.
It seems very foolish to waste tax dollars on something that has a marginal to poor success rate for the sake of being pollitically correct.
Let's face it, there are those who demonize and/or are afraid of faith based groups who would rather see tax dollars not used efficiently in the name of "seperation of church and state".
The judge doesn't like the fact that this group is recruiting?
The idea of a Christian ministry converting the sinner and getting them to join the church, is one of the defining elements of Christianity. Would this judge also accuse Billy Graham of "recruiting" with his ministry?
From a practical point of view, it would seem that the judge would welcome Christian converts in the prison...especially when one considers the gang influence, the violence and rapes that occur in our prisons.
For me, the bottom line is that it is a voluntary activity...nobody has to participate...and I think it should be available for other religions to avail themselves to prisoners as well.
We hold prisoners in jail cells...therefore we have a responsibilty to feed them, clothe them and provide the basic necessities of life...I believe that this should include the right to religious worship.
Religion in a tax supported institution?...Sure, why not?...as long as there is equal access to all religions...hey, these guys are a "captive audience". You can't send them out to attend the church of their choice...let the church come to them.
Hopefully, this ruling will be overturned. The judge has no business defining what religions are valid religions.
I, for one, hope that the ruling is NOT overturned.
Groucho, have you even looked at what you typed? :unsure:
-------------------------------------
"The judge doesn't like the fact that this group is recruiting?"
Uhh yeah! I mean, what are they recruiting them to? Answer: their religion!
"The idea of a Christian ministry converting the sinner and getting them to join the church, is one of the defining elements of Christianity."
And have you ever looked at the percentage of prisoners who are already of the Christian persuasion? A helluva lot higher than atheists, I'll tell you that right now.
"Would this judge also accuse Billy Graham of "recruiting" with his ministry?"
A-yup
"We hold prisoners in jail cells...therefore we have a responsibilty to feed them, clothe them and provide the basic necessities of life...I believe that this should include the right to religious worship."
They already have the right to religious worship. What the government should not do is provide the religion/worship itself.
"Religion in a tax supported institution?...Sure, why not?...as long as there is equal access to all religions"
Ahhh no, that was what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Religion should NOT be tax or government supported. That's part of the whole idea of what our founding fathers were trying to achieve.
"...hey, these guys are a "captive audience". You can't send them out to attend the church of their choice...let the church come to them. "
See above.
"The judge has no business defining what religions are valid religions."
This is about the only thing I agree with you here.
--------------------------------------
Zshot,
"Which has a better success rate, "faith based" groups or "secular groups"? The answer to that question should be the direction of where tax dollars go."
That misses the whole point of separation of church and state. Ie., it isn't nor ever shall be the governments business what religious practices its citizens take part in, ... including incarcerated ones.
I have a huge problem with my tax dollars being used to support any religion, my own included. When governments support religion, it send a message to people outside of that religion that says they are excluded. How can a government claim that all their citzens are created equal when they are supporting an evangelical Christian ministry that says those who don't participate are "unsaved," "lost," "pagan," those "who served the flesh," "of Satan," "sinful" and "of darkness."?
I'm all for religious freedom. But inmates are allowed to practice the religion of their choice, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, or even Arian. Why would they need a evangelical ministry to come unasked? And why should my tax dollars support them?
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
Hm.
The magic of the internet at work.....
====================
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/august/10.72.html
"Bad Judgment
Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country.
Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes an even more distorted public characterization of evangelicals.
According to a recent critic, the belief held by evangelicals and Prison Fellowship (PF) in the "substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus," reflects "a legalistic understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, [which] is not shared by many Christians." So much for the central tenet of every historic creed and confession of the Christian church.
Where is this critique—in The New York Times? No, it's the finding of U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in deciding on June 2 the lawsuit against PF brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The judge declared unconstitutional the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, a program started by PF.
Startlingly, the judge devoted a dozen pages to analyzing evangelicalism and PF's statement of faith, apparently determined to separate evangelicals from other Christians. Evangelicalism, he wrote, is "quite distinct from other self-described Christian faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and Greek Orthodoxy." It is also "distinct from other … Christian denominations, such as Lutheran, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian."
Evangelical Christianity, he found, tends to be "anti-sacramental," downplaying "baptism, holy communion or Eucharist, marriage, [and] ordination" as "appropriate ways to interact or meet with God." (The charge of downplaying baptism will surprise my 20 million fellow Baptists.) Moreover, we are "contemptuous" of Roman Catholic practices, a conclusion sure to amuse my colleagues with Evangelicals and Catholics Together.
To sum up: Evangelicals are a fringe cult inherently discriminatory, coercive, and antagonistic to other Christians.
Ironically, just days after the judge's decision, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons reported a desperate need in prisons for "highly structured programs which reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and lower recidivism rates after release."
This is precisely what InnerChange does. It has a proven record of rehabilitation—8 percent recidivism for graduates, according to a University of Pennsylvania study of a similar program in Texas. This compares with more than 60 percent recidivism nationally. The commission understands the urgency of these programs, because this year, 600,000 prisoners will be released. Within three years, more than two-thirds will be re-arrested.
Bad enough that the judge ordered closed a program that has proven successful, imperiling thousands of faith-based programs. Even worse, he expanded the Supreme Court precedent in Lemon v. Kurtzman. A careful reading of his opinion leads to the conclusion that even if state funds are not involved, any close government cooperation with "pervasively sectarian" groups is unconstitutional. Such a broad standard could easily be applied to church services or evangelistic events not only in prisons, but also in hospitals, military bases, or any government facility.
But the most alarming question is why the judge chose to write a sociological analysis of evangelicalism—something I've never seen before in any case. And why would he so inaccurately characterize evangelicals as a fringe cult? After all, we make up between 33 and 40 percent of the American population, drawing from scores of denominations, including many millions of Catholics.
Whatever the reason, by distinguishing evangelicals from all other Christian groups, Judge Pratt supported his finding that we discriminate and coerce conversions—despite the fact that every inmate testifying in the trial denied any coercion. InnerChange is voluntary; at any time, inmates can drop out. Many participants are not Christians.
Think of the consequences if this definition survives on appeal—enshrining in federal law a definition of evangelicals as a narrow, mean-spirited minority. This ruling could be cited in cases where pastors publicly denounce homosexuality or pray in Jesus' name on public property. What will prevent a court from deciding what is and is not legitimate theology, according to the trendiest, most politically correct standards?"
(snip)
==================
This is under appeal.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/j...y/128-52.0.html
"Imprisoned Ministry
The future of Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program, and other faith-based social services, are in the hands of an appeals court."
"Last month's federal court decision declaring unconstitutional a prison ministry run by Prison Fellowship has placed the status of other faith-based initiatives in question. Fallout for other Christian social services is limited for now while Prison Fellowship appeals the ruling. The appeals process could reach the Supreme Court.
• Related articles and links
In 1999, the state of Iowa partnered with InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a biblically based rehabilitation program designed by Prison Fellowship (PF), to reduce recidivism rates. Inmates from nine state prisons are eligible to apply for a transfer into the two- to three-year program.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt issued his verdict in a 140-page decision following a three-year trial that included a personal visit to the facilities of the disputed program. He ordered InnerChange to disband within 60 days and return about $1.5 million in funding it had received from the state of Iowa.
PF president Mark Earley said the organization is preparing to post bond and file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he is confident the judgment will be overturned. PF says that advocates of InnerChange and its upcoming appeal include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Rick Warren.
Earley said Pratt overstepped his constitutional bounds by ruling the program unconstitutional even if it accepted no state funds. Earley said the judge ignored the voluntary nature of InnerChange, which allows inmates to quit without punishment. "Based on this judge's ruling, the only way to improve this program is to move it out of the prison," said Earley. "And there are not many escapees that we can minister to."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed the lawsuit in 2003 on behalf of inmates who said InnerChange discriminated against non-Christians. "It certainly makes sense that Christians want to help prisoners," said AU executive director Barry Lynn. "What does not make sense is for the state to pay. The government simply cannot support and promote programs that are essentially religious efforts to provide service and convert people to a particular religion at the same time."
Secular service, faith-based approach
InnerChange embraces a transformative—rather than therapeutic—model that was developed by Charles Colson. Inmates who participate in InnerChange can attend Bible studies and worship services along with non-religious classes such as substance abuse counseling, and academic and life skills training.
In 1997, when President George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he oversaw the introduction of InnerChange in his home state.
PF leaders met with President Bush in the White House in 2003 to discuss the results of a University of Pennsylvania study that concluded InnerChange graduates were half as likely as non-participants to be reincarcerated within two years of their release.
But when the study sample was broadened to include both graduates and those who dropped out of the program, InnerChange participants were reincarcerated at the same rate as the control group that did not participate in any rehabilitation program. (The program has a 58 percent dropout rate.)
After meeting with PF, Bush told then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to look into the possibility of implementing InnerChange in federal prisons. Bush also proposed a $400 million, four-year initiative to reduce recidivism in his 2004 State of the Union address.
The Bureau of Prisons is currently running a multi-faith rehabilitation program in five federal prisons, but it has temporarily withdrawn its request to implement a single-faith rehabilitation program in six federal prisons, for which $3 million had been appropriated.
Separating out the sectarian
Charles Haynes, senior scholar of the First Amendment Center, believes the InnerChange case is "the most significant case to date" for faith-based initiatives, because it may lead to legislation in Congress that will mandate additional oversight. Haynes says state authorities should perform "audits" to make sure faith-based programs are not using state money for sectarian purposes.
"Right now, there are a lot of religious organizations that fall into this gray area," Haynes said. "There are programs where it is really difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is the religious and what is the secular part of the program."
The state of Iowa funded 40 percent of the InnerChange program. Those funds paid for InnerChange's designated "non-sectarian" expenses such as office supplies, an employee appreciation dinner, and 82 percent of the program director's salary.
InnerChange programs in Arkansas—dedicated one day before the Iowa ruling—and Texas are privately funded, while programs in Kansas and Minnesota receive some state funding. About 1,100 inmates are currently enrolled in InnerChange programs.
Earley said that the recent ruling strikes a blow to the religious liberty of inmates and emphasized that Muslims, Wiccans, and Druids have all graduated from the program, which does not require inmates to convert to Christianity.
"Governments don't have the money or the willpower to provide rehabilitative services for prisoners that work," Earley said. "By definition, their programs are secular. If they are denied the opportunity to partner with faith-based organizations, we are in for a darker future when it comes to the prison system in America.""
================
Prison Fellowship responded.
http://www.pfm.org/generic.asp?ID=2416
(PDFs and stuff.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
First off, the judge should have kept his 'comprehensive comparative analysis' of different Christian denominations and rendering of evangelicals out of his ruling.
That said, I believe that he is correct as to the unconstitutionality of this particular government support of faith-based programs in tax supported prisons. Ie., religious beliefs and doctrine has no place in government sponsored operations such as this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not so sure. I think it would be just as wrong to disqualify the program BECAUSE of its religious content as it would be to disqualify the program for not having any religious content. I think it's an interesting constitutional question. It would be wrong for the state to require people to go through that program, but to penalize them for choosing that program over another one would be just as much a violation of the constitution.
And I hope it goes without saying that the judge has no right whatsoever to assess a particular movement's compatibility with Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
that certainly is not a law based judgement...more like a judgement based law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
..... no regard for what works.... HEY "your honor" How bout we buy all the houses in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and let them move in with you and all yours??? Then you can render aid, comfort, your property, wife and children to rehabilitate them.... IDIOTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Those articles are so skewed and slanted.
For the other side, try this one: Evangelical Conversion-for-Parole Program Thwarted
I saw nothing in the (long) article about a ruling that evangelicals are unconstitutional. But a lot on a tax-payer funded religious organization who's only purpose in the prison was to recruit new members.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
And why Prison Fellowship really wants to be in that prison (besides recruiting convicts to their cult):
1.5 Million is a lot of money. That's 1/2 million per year.
Let me see, would I want to be paid 1/2 million per year to recruit new members to my cult?
That's 1/2 million of tax payer money per year.
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
****Abigail here - using the upstairs puter :) ************
Thanks, GT, for posting the other side of the story. Working in the legal field, I prefer to read the actual Opinion written by the Judge or Justices, to form my own opinion. Editorials tend to slant things toward whatever agenda they are trying to further. I still have no final opinion in this case, because I haven't read the official Opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I would be interested in reading the final opinion myself. Haven't been able to find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
Let me jump to the bottom line here...
Which has a better success rate, "faith based" groups or "secular groups"?
The answer to that question should be the direction of where tax dollars go.
It seems very foolish to waste tax dollars on something that has a marginal to poor success rate for the sake of being pollitically correct.
Let's face it, there are those who demonize and/or are afraid of faith based groups who would rather see tax dollars not used efficiently in the name of "seperation of church and state".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The judge doesn't like the fact that this group is recruiting?
The idea of a Christian ministry converting the sinner and getting them to join the church, is one of the defining elements of Christianity. Would this judge also accuse Billy Graham of "recruiting" with his ministry?
From a practical point of view, it would seem that the judge would welcome Christian converts in the prison...especially when one considers the gang influence, the violence and rapes that occur in our prisons.
For me, the bottom line is that it is a voluntary activity...nobody has to participate...and I think it should be available for other religions to avail themselves to prisoners as well.
We hold prisoners in jail cells...therefore we have a responsibilty to feed them, clothe them and provide the basic necessities of life...I believe that this should include the right to religious worship.
Religion in a tax supported institution?...Sure, why not?...as long as there is equal access to all religions...hey, these guys are a "captive audience". You can't send them out to attend the church of their choice...let the church come to them.
Hopefully, this ruling will be overturned. The judge has no business defining what religions are valid religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I, for one, hope that the ruling is NOT overturned.
Groucho, have you even looked at what you typed? :unsure:
-------------------------------------
"The judge doesn't like the fact that this group is recruiting?"
Uhh yeah! I mean, what are they recruiting them to? Answer: their religion!
"The idea of a Christian ministry converting the sinner and getting them to join the church, is one of the defining elements of Christianity."
And have you ever looked at the percentage of prisoners who are already of the Christian persuasion? A helluva lot higher than atheists, I'll tell you that right now.
"Would this judge also accuse Billy Graham of "recruiting" with his ministry?"
A-yup
"We hold prisoners in jail cells...therefore we have a responsibilty to feed them, clothe them and provide the basic necessities of life...I believe that this should include the right to religious worship."
They already have the right to religious worship. What the government should not do is provide the religion/worship itself.
"Religion in a tax supported institution?...Sure, why not?...as long as there is equal access to all religions"
Ahhh no, that was what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Religion should NOT be tax or government supported. That's part of the whole idea of what our founding fathers were trying to achieve.
"...hey, these guys are a "captive audience". You can't send them out to attend the church of their choice...let the church come to them. "
See above.
"The judge has no business defining what religions are valid religions."
This is about the only thing I agree with you here.
--------------------------------------
Zshot,
"Which has a better success rate, "faith based" groups or "secular groups"? The answer to that question should be the direction of where tax dollars go."
That misses the whole point of separation of church and state. Ie., it isn't nor ever shall be the governments business what religious practices its citizens take part in, ... including incarcerated ones.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
I have a huge problem with my tax dollars being used to support any religion, my own included. When governments support religion, it send a message to people outside of that religion that says they are excluded. How can a government claim that all their citzens are created equal when they are supporting an evangelical Christian ministry that says those who don't participate are "unsaved," "lost," "pagan," those "who served the flesh," "of Satan," "sinful" and "of darkness."?
I'm all for religious freedom. But inmates are allowed to practice the religion of their choice, whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wiccan, or even Arian. Why would they need a evangelical ministry to come unasked? And why should my tax dollars support them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.