Faith-based Prisons

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor I really wouldn't care one way or the other. If the home team wanted you up there, then it should be allowed to do so (not that there needs to be anything coming over the microphone except for the game-related announcements). I will have to insist that you not try to tell me what I would or would not do. So what? Others would say the evidence points elsewhere. It's not really relevant to anything. I'm claiming, in your football team analogy, that it's up to the football team. Absolutely! I wouldn't want to yank that microphone out of your hand. I might roll my eyes at what you're saying or shake my head in disbelief over your misguided belief but being the Libertarian that I am I definitely would not want to yank the microphone out of your hand. It's not "government time." The government has no rights and the Constitution was written to significantly limit government. When it comes to religion, government is required to keep its nose out - that means it cannot establish an official government religion AND cannot in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion - regardless of that religion. I'd be perfectly content if schools didn't have anyone going to the microphone before the start of a game - except for the announcer announcing the start of the game. I don't believe in the notion of "equal time" but I do believe that government is constitutionally prohibited from barring one group or another. So, if a school has one of those ridiculous* "diversity" days then it must allow all groups to be represented that want to be represented and it cannot advocate or disparage any group because the government is not entitled to an opinion. *ridiculous because the only group identity that matters is the identity of being American.

It is government time because it is state supported. But, you and I probably aren't that far off in what we believe, if you really think none of this religion stuff needs to be discussed at football games or before class starts. If you really agree that the government is not entitled to an opinion on religion, then you should also agree that an elected school board is just as unentitled. You should agree that favoring Christianity by dent of it's majority status is expressing an opinion. If you really mean those things, we are probably in the same chapter, if not on the same page.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Chancellor There really isn't a difference and "crap" is a term that could also be applied to psychology.

Psychological treatment is something that can be shown to have positive results on a patient. That's all it claims to do.

That's the difference between Christianity and psychology. Evidence.

[yourwrong]

Chancellor,
1. I never said psychology works.

2. Religion doesn't decrease crime as I made clear in a thread at the bottom of all my posts.

3. Prisoners may just fake converting to get reduced sentences.

4. Their is a diffrence between entirely censoring evangelicals and not allowing them to run prisons where no other religions are represented and where the prisoners are shut out of any diffrent opinions other then that of the evangelical church. Plus it affringes on the seperation of church and state as prisons are owned by the state.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Psychological treatment is something that can be shown to have positive results on a patient. That's all it claims to do.

Religion is something that can be shown to have positive results on an individual and that's all it claims to do.

That's the difference between Christianity and psychology. Evidence.

There is no difference between the two except for the underlying philosophy.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong Chancellor, 1. I never said psychology works.

Nor did I claim that you did.

2. Religion doesn't decrease crime as I made clear in a thread at the bottom of all my posts.

Psychology doesn't decrease crime either. However, religion can have a positive impact on certain individuals and decrease or eliminate a particular individual's criminality.

3. Prisoners may just fake converting to get reduced sentences.

They may also fake what they're telling the psychologist for the same reason.

4. Their is a diffrence between entirely censoring evangelicals and not allowing them to run prisons where no other religions are represented and where the prisoners are shut out of any diffrent opinions other then that of the evangelical church. Plus it affringes on the seperation of church and state as prisons are owned by the state.

If a Muslim group wants to operate a prison or a Hindu group wants to or a Wiccan group wants to or a Jewish group wants to, let them! If a secular humanist group wants to, let them. Maybe they'll do a better job of it than the government is doing!

THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!

Government does not have the constitutional authority to infringe on religion in any way whatsoever and it does not have the authority to establish an official State (meaning federal) religion.

[yourwrong]

It is the job of the government to run the prisons and they can not favor any religion over the other and I doubt the state would allow a muslim group to run a prison.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It is government time because it is state supported.

Again, the government doesn't have "time." Having "in God we trust" as our national motto is also state supported and yet the Supreme Court has upheld such acts of what it calls "ceremonial deism" which are traditional religious acts that have lost all real meaning (like a chaplain praying in the House of Representatives before the start of a session).

But, you and I probably aren't that far off in what we believe, if you really think none of this religion stuff needs to be discussed at football games or before class starts.

There doesn't need to be any secular stuff either and we're not talking about discussion here - citizens can discuss whatever they want.

If you really agree that the government is not entitled to an opinion on religion, then you should also agree that an elected school board is just as unentitled.

I agree. Are you willing to concede that this also means a school board is not entitled to prohibit a particular viewpoint from entering a school from outside if it allows other viewpoints?

You should agree that favoring Christianity by dent of it's majority status is expressing an opinion.

No, I don't agree with that, particularly since I don't believe the majority of Americans are really Christian.

If you really mean those things, we are probably in the same chapter, if not on the same page.

Politically, I'm a Libertarian: I want the government as far out of people's lives as possible!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong It is the job of the government to run the prisons and they can not favor any religion over the other and I doubt the state would allow a muslim group to run a prison.

Who says it's the job of government to run prisions? There's nothing in the Constitution about prisons. Since the only power federal government has is the power enumerated in the Constitution (this limitation was extended to the states in the 14th amendment), there is no constitutional authority for government-run prisons.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Again, the government doesn't have "time." Having "in God we trust" as our national motto is also state supported and yet the Supreme Court has upheld such acts of what it calls "ceremonial deism" which are traditional religious acts that have lost all real meaning (like a chaplain praying in the House of Representatives before the start of a session). There doesn't need to be any secular stuff either and we're not talking about discussion here - citizens can discuss whatever they want. I agree. Are you willing to concede that this also means a school board is not entitled to prohibit a particular viewpoint from entering a school from outside if it allows other viewpoints? No, I don't agree with that, particularly since I don't believe the majority of Americans are really Christian. Politically, I'm a Libertarian: I want the government as far out of people's lives as possible!

The government does have "time" and the distinction between "In God We Trust" printed on a coin and opening school every moring with a prayer to Jesus is a bit fuzzy in my opinion. But, there is a distinction. If they (SCOTUS) have to draw a line, at least you CAN ignore what is on the coin. You can not ignore an amplified voice. The purpose of the seperation of church and state is not to protect any one religion or group of religions. It is to prevent the accendency of any particular religion and to preserve the freedom to dissent. No opinion does not mean no negetive opinion, it means NO OPINION. No support, no attack. Religion belongs in church, in homes and in hearts. Not in schools, courthouses or statehouses.

[yourwrong]

Quote by: Chancellor Who says it's the job of government to run prisions? There's nothing in the Constitution about prisons. Since the only power federal government has is the power enumerated in the Constitution (this limitation was extended to the states in the 14th amendment), there is no constitutional authority for government-run prisons.

As prisoners are breaking state and federal laws it only makes sense that they go to state and federal prisons where their rights will be upheld and they will get fair punishment. While in a private prison it could either be way to luxurious for the prisoner or even worse then public prisons unless the state, federal, or local government oversees it. Also in a private prison as I said earlier you could control all the information coming to prisoners in others creating sheeple. As in the christian prison their probaly also giving reduced sentences for converting to another religion somehow I don't find that very morale.

[yourwrong]

Quote: 3. Prisoners may just fake converting to get reduced sentences. They may also fake what they're telling the psychologist for the same reason.

So why give them another way of duping the system.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong As prisoners are breaking state and federal laws it only makes sense that they go to state and federal prisons where their rights will be upheld and they will get fair punishment.

Tell me you don't really believe that government prisons uphold prisoner rights and tell me you don't really believe every prisoner gets a fair punishment.

While in a private prison it could either be way too luxurious for the prisoner or even worse then public prisons unless the state, federal, or local government oversees it. Also in a private prison as I said earlier you could control all the information coming to prisoners in others creating sheeple. As in the christian prison their probaly also giving reduced sentences for converting to another religion somehow I don't find that very morale.

Maybe you should do some research on the conditions in government prisons in the 18th and 19th centuries before you try to go too far with this. By the way, prisons don't control the length of the sentence, the courts do - though a parole board does get to decide whether a prisoner that is eligible for parole should be paroled.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong So why give them another way of duping the system.

Well, then, let's take the psychologists out of the prisons.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The government does have "time"

You're really not understanding this. There's no such thing as the government's time because the power and authority of government is strictly limited by the Constitution and there is nothing that gives the government the authority to have citizens as a captive audience for a length of time.

and the distinction between "In God We Trust" printed on a coin and opening school every moring with a prayer to Jesus is a bit fuzzy in my opinion.

I was just citing the motto as an example of ceremonial deism. The opening prayer in school is another example of ceremonial deism. It was wrong to remove one without removing the other since both, arguably, are establishing a State religion.

But, there is a distinction. If they (SCOTUS) have to draw a line, at least you CAN ignore what is on the coin.

Can you? If you have to look at the coin in order to determine which one to give to the cashier, you might not be able to ignore it.

You can not ignore an amplified voice.

Sure you can.

The purpose of the seperation of church and state is not to protect any one religion or group of religions. It is to prevent the accendency of any particular religion and to preserve the freedom to dissent. No opinion does not mean no negetive opinion, it means NO OPINION. No support, no attack. Religion belongs in church, in homes and in hearts. Not in schools, courthouses or statehouses.

First, there is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution or any of its amendments and I really wish you people would stop using that phrase. Congress is prohibited from passing LAWS that either establish a religion (a Church of the United States) or that prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Also, I didn't say that "no opinion does not mean no negative opinion" and I will insist that you stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. Students don't give up their constitutional rights once they step onto the school grounds and, thus, you are committing treason against the Constitution by insisting that the free exercise of religion be infringed. Religion belongs wherever citizens of religious faith happen to be. In the footbal game analogy you cited earlier, I think that if students want to open the game in prayer and do it over the public address system, they should be allowed to do so since they're students and not the government. However, I also think that the school district should be prohibited from mandating such a prayer or even initiating it. With regard to opening classes up in the morning with prayer (why you felt the need to single out Jesus, I don't know - perhaps that's a particular animus on your part or a Christophobia), if the school district mandates it then it is unconstitutional (as all instances of ceremonial deism are). If students want to get together on school grounds before the start of classes to pray, the government has no constitutional authority to prohibit them from doing so.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor You're really not understanding this. There's no such thing as the government's time because the power and authority of government is strictly limited by the Constitution and there is nothing that gives the government the authority to have citizens as a captive audience for a length of time. I was just citing the motto as an example of ceremonial deism. The opening prayer in school is another example of ceremonial deism. It was wrong to remove one without removing the other since both, arguably, are establishing a State religion. Can you? If you have to look at the coin in order to determine which one to give to the cashier, you might not be able to ignore it. Sure you can. First, there is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the Constitution or any of its amendments and I really wish you people would stop using that phrase. Congress is prohibited from passing LAWS that either establish a religion (a Church of the United States) or that prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Also, I didn't say that "no opinion does not mean no negative opinion" and I will insist that you stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. Students don't give up their constitutional rights once they step onto the school grounds and, thus, you are committing treason against the Constitution by insisting that the free exercise of religion be infringed. Religion belongs wherever citizens of religious faith happen to be. In the footbal game analogy you cited earlier, I think that if students want to open the game in prayer and do it over the public address system, they should be allowed to do so since they're students and not the government. However, I also think that the school district should be prohibited from mandating such a prayer or even initiating it. With regard to opening classes up in the morning with prayer (why you felt the need to single out Jesus, I don't know - perhaps that's a particular animus on your part or a Christophobia), if the school district mandates it then it is unconstitutional (as all instances of ceremonial deism are). If students want to get together on school grounds before the start of classes to pray, the government has no constitutional authority to prohibit them from doing so.

Your definition of government time is too narrow, and isn't that just lucky for you. The government, in any case, does mandate that children be in school. If you are poor, that means they essentially mandate that they be in a public school. And if I am poor and Jewish or poor and Hindu, what makes you think I want my kids to be forced to listen to prayers that name Jesus. And talk about putting an animus falsely on someone, I said Jesus because he is the central focus of the dominant religion in this country (Chritianity) and therefore the most likely to be used in any case. I don't hate Christians. I don't hate Christ or Christianity. I hate what some do in it's and his name. I doubt the supernatural aspects of any religion, but I am not phobic of any of them. So, though you bristle at the idea that someone might assign motives to you that are not your own, you sure have no trouble doing it yourself.

And the reason the kids in the school should not be allowed to pray in Jesus' name over the intercom is because it does show favor to the dominant religion while some kids of other faiths HAVE to be there. Like it or not, it is disrespectful of their right to be free of someone elses version of "religious truth". So, suck it up. Pray to Jesus all you want, just do it at home, in church or in your head. Not over the public address systems.

And if you are seriously contending that amplified voices are less intrusive than words on a coin, you probably don't understand the meaning of the word intrusive. Please do not condesend to me with all your Christophobia crap. You know and I know that there is absolutely no danger that Christianity will be forced into some dark corner anytime soon. I tried to be reasonable in tone with you. You were having no part of it. I thought maybe you might actually want to find some common ground. My mistake. I won't make it with you again.

[lsbskins1]

And you will also do well to remember these words:

And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Matthew 6:5-6)


It does not say "Be not like the hypocrites.Go ahead and pray out in the open where everyone can see and hear you, but only do it if you really mean it, God will know the difference." It tells you to do it privately and God will reward you openly. If I am anything I am a "people who pretend to know more than me but do not follow the teachings of their own creed"-aphobe. If you want to stand in a field, or on the side of a mountain and people gather around you because they want to hear your message, then you would be following his lead. If you want to force others to listen or if you insist that Christ wanted you to force others, you know little of his actual words. But this presuposes actual following of the creed, and even that is beside the point. If you were Muslim and wanted to call the faithful to prayer over the public address system, I would say that it was wrong, because then - you would be a Muslim forcing your version of religious truth on non-muslims. The point is, no one should do it to any other faith or even to a person of no faith. If you want to respectfully ask me if you can tell me about your faith, I will respectfully answer you that I am not interested and have no problem with your actions if you respect my wishes. You are free to ask, as long as I am free to decline without any more hassle. I would not stop you from attempting to share "the word". I would stop you from yelling at me from the roadside, telling me I am going to go to hell if I do not follow your rules. Do you see the difference? I only ask that you give the same respect you demand.

[yourwrong]

Quote by: Chancellor Tell me you don't really believe that government prisons uphold prisoner rights and tell me you don't really believe every prisoner gets a fair punishment. Maybe you should do some research on the conditions in government prisons in the 18th and 19th centuries before you try to go too far with this. By the way, prisons don't control the length of the sentence, the courts do - though a parole board does get to decide whether a prisoner that is eligible for parole should be paroled.

I am aware our justice system is one of the worst and our prisons are extremely crowded. That just tells us that we need to push congress and the state government to improve on these things. Not give the prisons to evangelicals or any other religion or private companies looking to benifit from the cheap labor of prisoners.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Your definition of government time is too narrow, and isn't that just lucky for you.

I'm a Libertarian: I don't cede to the government anything beyond what is ceded to it in the Constitution.

The government, in any case, does mandate that children be in school.

Which is unconstitutional.

If you are poor, that means they essentially mandate that they be in a public school.

They can be homeschooled (something I would certainly recommend given the poor quality of education received in these government indoctrination centers called public schools.

And if I am poor and Jewish or poor and Hindu, what makes you think I want my kids to be forced to listen to prayers that name Jesus.

Why should Christian kids be forced to listen to anti-Christian secular dogma? Why should Christian kids be forced to listen to prayers to Allah or Vishnu or Gaia? You are attributing a position to me that I do not hold and I'm going to have to insist that you knock it off! If you're going to disagree with me then disagree with what I actually believe.

And talk about putting an animus falsely on someone,

I was merely speculating - you're overreacting.

I said Jesus because he is the central focus of the dominant religion in this country (Chritianity) and therefore the most likely to be used in any case.

Whether Christianity is really the dominant religion in this country is subject to debate.

I don't hate Christians. I don't hate Christ or Christianity. I hate what some do in it's and his name.

Your histrionics and overreaction to what you wrongly think I'm saying suggests there's more to it than just hating what some so-called Christians do.

I doubt the supernatural aspects of any religion, but I am not phobic of any of them.

You're free to doubt whatever you want and I'm using the term "Christophobia" in the way you homosexuals use "homophobia."

So, though you bristle at the idea that someone might assign motives to you that are not your own, you sure have no trouble doing it yourself.

I wasn't assigning motives, I was merely speculating.

And the reason the kids in the school should not be allowed to pray in Jesus' name over the intercom is because it does show favor to the dominant religion while some kids of other faiths HAVE to be there. Like it or not, it is disrespectful of their right to be free of someone elses version of "religious truth". So, suck it up. Pray to Jesus all you want, just do it at home, in church or in your head. Not over the public address systems. And if you are seriously contending that amplified voices are less intrusive than words on a coin, you probably don't understand the meaning of the word intrusive. Please do not condesend to me with all your Christophobia crap. You know and I know that there is absolutely no danger that Christianity will be forced into some dark corner anytime soon. I tried to be reasonable in tone with you. You were having no part of it. I thought maybe you might actually want to find some common ground. My mistake. I won't make it with you again.

You seem to be assuming I'm taking a position that I'm not taking, which is typical of people like you who tend to read into what other people post instead of reading what is posted. I challenge you to show me how the following statement that I made in my earlier post is supporting mandated prayer over the intercom at school before the start of classes: "With regard to opening classes up in the morning with prayer (why you felt the need to single out Jesus, I don't know - perhaps that's a particular animus on your part or a Christophobia), if the school district mandates it then it is unconstitutional (as all instances of ceremonial deism are). If students want to get together on school grounds before the start of classes to pray, the government has no constitutional authority to prohibit them from doing so." Oh, by the way, you might want to brush up on your reading skills because there was nothing in my post that said anything about students praying over the intercom in school. If you're going to disagree with me then I expect you to disagree with what I wrote and not your interpretation of it!

You said, "kids in the school should not be allowed to pray in Jesus' name over the intercom is because it does show favor to the dominant religion..." Does this mean kids in the school should be allowed to pray to Allah or Vishnu or Gaia or some other deity? Notice I'm just asking a question here based on what you actually wrote.

By the way, there is no constitutional right to freedom from religion. No one has a right not to be exposed to expressions of religious faith. So, take your own advice and suck it up!

In case you still aren't getting it, my position is that the government has no constitutional authority to mandate religious expression (including such things as mandated prayer at the beginning of the school day) and has no constitutional authority to in any way infringe on the free exercise of religion (regardless of what that religion is). Of course, I also think these government indoctrination centers (public schools) are unconstitutional but that's another issue.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong I am aware our justice system is one of the worst and our prisons are extremely crowded. That just tells us that we need to push congress and the state government to improve on these things. Not give the prisons to evangelicals or any other religion or private companies looking to benifit from the cheap labor of prisoners.

The government has shown that it doesn't do prisons very well. The answer is not to have the government to continue controlling prisons. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity. Give the prisons to churches or mosques or any private entity (for-profit, non-profit, whatever) that wants to take the responsibility - maybe they'll do a better job.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor