Faith-based Prisons

[Section 8]

Horrible problem that needs fixing immediately.

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/columns/h.../faithbased.htm

Here's the article (by Kerry Howley from Democracy Means You)

Watergate-convict-turned-Christian evangelist Chuck Colson has the perfect solution to the alarming rise of Islamic fundamentalism among American prisoners. That solution would be a 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week fundamentalist Christian curriculum for male inmates. And if you live in Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas or Texas, you may already be paying for it.

In a case that could determine the boundaries of President Bush's faith-based initiative, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), a religious liberty watchdog group, is currently suing Colson's InnerChange program for its use of state funds. But the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) is only the most visible manifestation of a collective lurch toward fundamentalist Christianity among American prisons. Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest operator of private correctional facilities, has announced its intention to launch faith-based programs in each of its 59 facilities. And in the face of unmanageable state deficits, privately funded Christian programs are everywhere touted as cheap alternatives to clinical programs.

Prison Ministry in the United States dates back to the first modern American prison, where, flanked by loaded cannons aimed at his students, preacher William Rogers instilled the word of God into Pennsylvania's miscreants. Two centuries later, the 1960s brought rehabilitation into vogue, and clinical programs became the norm. Ever since, the two ideologies—religious conversion and clinical therapy—have maintained an uneasy co-existence. The IFI website sums up the difference between the two approaches in a handy chart: Therapy seeks "gradual change of self" while conversion endorses "instantaneous transformation." Therapy counsels that "problems in life may arise from past inability to have one's needs met;" for the converted, "all problems in life arise from a condition of sin."

The tensions play out as therapists and clergymen vie for the ultimate captive audience. Dr. Martin Atrops used to run a successful clinical rehabilitation program for sexual offenders at Meadow Creek Correctional Facility in Eagle River, Alaska, and his experience is illuminating.

"We had several disagreements with the chaplain," explains Atrops. " Not all of our prisoners were heterosexual. He led prisoners to believe that any other sexual orientation was completely inappropriate. But this is the sort of thing where the solution is not denial."

In a state with the fifth highest rate of sexual assault in the nation, not one of the men who have completed Atrops' program in the last five years has reoffended. Atrops predicts that the treatment has saved the state over $1 million in early releases. Yet Alaska's Department of Corrections deemed the program "ineffective" and slashed funding from the state budget. The new plan for Eagle River's 78 inmates? According to Portia Parker, Deputy Commissioner of Alaska's Department of Corrections, Alaska is currently considering a privately funded "faith-based pod" similar to one the state already runs in Arizona.

"I'm deeply concerned and very much alarmed," says Atrops. "You've got individuals with no credentials and no experience and no specialty who are going to be offering, in a sense, treatment. A lot of these problems have long histories that can't be solved this way."

Since the Alaskan proposal comes without a price tag, it is unlikely to encounter much resistance. But as Barry Lynn, director of AU, puts it, "the calculus changes legally and morally when you start using other people's money."

In Iowa, state money won from tobacco companies is channeled toward Prison Fellowship, an organization that aims to convert prisoners to fundamentalist Christianity through an intense, bible-centered curriculum known as the Innerchange Freedom Initiative.

The unlikely pairing of state funds and bible-study has roots in former Senator John Ashcroft's "charitable choice" provision, which was inserted into the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and facilitated state support for secular services provided by faith-based programs. Once in office, Bush issued an executive order known as the Faith-Based Initiative, thereby creating a bureaucracy with the sole purpose of providing support to faith-based providers of social services.

On the surface, the Faith-Based Initiative is a rational attempt at efficient allocation of funds. Bush's executive order outlines ground rules to maintain an ostensible separation between church and state. State funds are not to be used for "inherently religious" activities, and charities cannot turn away anyone on the basis of faith or require anyone to participate in religious activities. But the division between "inherently religious" activity and secular services in a religious setting is necessarily approximate; in the case of IFI, it is non-existent.

The IFI website is chock-full of promotional material and states repeatedly that "the application of biblical principles is not an agenda item—it is the agenda." Prison Fellowship president Mark Easley, who declined to comment for this story, has said that state monies are used only for "non-sectarian expenses." But it is not at all clear how a program with conversion as its stated aim can have non-sectarian expenses. If IFI's own materials are to be believed, any funds the program receives will support its self-proclaimed goal of Christian conversion.

While every aspect of the program includes religious instruction, IFI offers services that prisoners of any faith are likely to want—everything from mentoring programs to computer training to extensive after-care upon release. Prisoners are offered a choice—reject services that may be crucial to successful reintegration, or enter a pervasively religious program. The website states that prisoners should only apply if "willing to actively participate in a Christ-centered, biblically-based program." In its legal complaint against IFI, AU alleges that participants are actually evaluated on whether they are "quick to praise God" and "demonstrate a belief in Jesus Christ." This clearly defies the White House stipulation that state-funded programs not require participants to attend religious activities.

Nevertheless, the administration repeatedly cites IFI as a paradigm for state-funded religious organizations. Following a meeting between Bush and Colson last month, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Jim Towey announced the administration's plan to seek ways of expanding such programs. Attorney General John Ashcroft, always a creative interpreter of the Constitution, will be put in charge. The willingness of President Bush to overlook blatant violations of his own initiative suggests a particular view of church and state—a view in which the establishment clause is a technicality to be overcome. Colson himself has expressed surprise at the federal government's eagerness to fund IFI. After his meeting with the president, Colson told reporters "I didn't think he'd be willing to fight it through...all the church-state issues."

Even if state-supported Christian conversion could somehow be justified on the basis of results, the University of Pennsylvania study cited by the White House as proof of IFI's success is problematic. The study points to low recidivism rates, which IFI clearly delivers, but fails to provide a control group with similar secular benefits such as mentoring and education. IFI representatives claim that Christian values are central to the program's success, but the claim itself is based on faith.

AU's lawsuit is in pre-depositional stages; meanwhile, Bush's Faith-Based Initiative is in overdrive. Whether or not IFI survives the legal ordeals ahead, cash-strapped prisons are likely to turn increasingly toward religious conversion. But the transition from clinical therapy to Christian conversion is not merely the shifting of a burden from the public to the private sector; it is the replacement of one ideology with another. Lynn maintains that "the government should not be in the business of getting people right with Jesus." For as long as states are willing to define rehabilitation in terms of salvation, getting people right with the law may mean exactly that.


Have Fun
Shalom

[Anarchist Patriot]

Normally I would say that there should be seperation of church and state but anything that makes life tolerable for prisoners and gets them to reform themselves is a step in the right direction.

[Section 8]

As said in the article, the psychologists are already doing a great job. Yet those people who think that forcing their religious ideas on prisoners is a good idea are overwhelming prisons. This MUST be stopped.

Have Fun
Shalom

[syc-sadist]

thats sucks........religion shouldn't come into things like this


freedom of religion should also mean one has the right to freedom from religion

[Razzgot]

Wow they want to brainwash to get converts now. bombarding prisoners with 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week fundamentalist Christianity curriculum. How is that not brainwashing.

[sdbest]

Can we call "faith-based" for what it is? Faith-based means "evangelical Christian-based." Evangelical Christianity is pernicious. It has no place in a tolerant, secular, multi-cultural society.

Regards
S.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: sdbest Can we call "faith-based" for what it is? Faith-based means "evangelical Christian-based." Evangelical Christianity is pernicious. It has no place in a tolerant, secular, multi-cultural society. Regards S.

And of course, you won't tolerate any society but one with the attributes that YOU decide are necessary.


On the topic, the privatized prisons that are initiating faith-based programs, have at it. Build a Hindu-based prison program if you want. It's your business. Operate it like you want.

For the prisons that directly recieve state funding and are operated and owned BY the state, this probably breaches the 1st amendment.

[Mia]

How do prisoners' rights change going to a privatized prison? They didn't choose it as an option. They are still under the control of the DOC.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Section 8 As said in the article, the psychologists are already doing a great job. Yet those people who think that forcing their religious ideas on prisoners is a good idea are overwhelming prisons. This MUST be stopped. Have Fun Shalom

Forcing psychological theories on people must be stopped.

By the way, you seem to have missed the fact that these religious ministries aren't forcing anyone to believe anything. Belief is not something that can be forced. You might be able to achieve outward compliance but genuine belief is something that comes from within the individual.

What amazes me is that there are people who think the choice to engage in certain behaviors that just happen to be illegal is a "mental illness" that needs to be treated with medication or through psychotherapy - and that these people get to force their sick thinking on society under the guise of being secular.

People are criminals because they commit crimes. Crimes exist because governments pass legislation against specific behaviors.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: sdbest Can we call "faith-based" for what it is? Faith-based means "evangelical Christian-based." Evangelical Christianity is pernicious. It has no place in a tolerant, secular, multi-cultural society. Regards S.

Your attitude toward evangelical Christianity isn't very tolerant!

It seems that in your thinking only secular people are allowed to do things to help improve society or to even express an opinion in society.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Razzgot Wow they want to brainwash to get converts now. bombarding prisoners with 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week fundamentalist Christianity curriculum. How is that not brainwashing.

Well, if psychologists get to brainwash prisoners with their perverted theories, why can't Christians do the same?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: sdbest Can we call "faith-based" for what it is? Faith-based means "evangelical Christian-based." Evangelical Christianity is pernicious. It has no place in a tolerant, secular, multi-cultural society. Regards S.

I would like to say that though I agree that "faith-based" in fact does in effect mean "evangelical Christian-based", I will not go down the "it has no place" path. It is no more right for me to deny evancelical Christians a place in society than it is for them to attempt to deny my lesbian butt a place in that society. I do not ask that evangelical Christians be banned. I only ask that they not be allowed to ban me. That allows for the "tolerant" and the "multi-cultural".

[sdbest]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I will not go down the "it has no place" path. It is no more right for me to deny evancelical Christians a place in society than it is for them to attempt to deny my lesbian butt a place in that society. I do not ask that evangelical Christians be banned. I only ask that they not be allowed to ban me. That allows for the "tolerant" and the "multi-cultural".

Evangelical Christianity wants to ban your "lesbian butt" which is why in my view people with that attitude need to be censored and exposed. Their views must be permitted no role in government services which by definition must be available to all people, without prejudice. One purpose of Evangelical Christianity is to evangelize, which is fine in their churches where people can choose to listen to them or not. They must not be allowed to use prisons and be given captive people in order to spread their word.

Regards
S.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: sdbest Evangelical Christianity wants to ban your "lesbian butt" which is why in my view people with that attitude need to be censored and exposed. Their views must be permitted no role in government services which by definition must be available to all people, without prejudice. One purpose of Evangelical Christianity is to evangelize, which is fine in their churches where people can choose to listen to them or not. They must not be allowed to use prisons and be given captive people in order to spread their word. Regards S.

Agreed. I guess I was a little nervous over your language. This is how I see it. They can preach whatever they want in their churches, marry whoever they want in their churches, believe whatever they want to believe about where my soul is destined in the after-life. They can not tell me what I can watch on TV, go to see at the movies or who I can marry. They can not take the mike in the morning at school or at the football game.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Agreed. I guess I was a little nervous over your language. This is how I see it. They can preach whatever they want in their churches, marry whoever they want in their churches, believe whatever they want to believe about where my soul is destined in the after-life. They can not tell me what I can watch on TV, go to see at the movies or who I can marry. They can not take the mike in the morning at school or at the football game.

Then, following your unamerican argument, neither should you be allowed to do these.

This is America: we don't believe in censorship!

It is a dangerous and treasonous notion that insists on censoring certain groups or barring certain viewpoints from the public arena (including the government) - regardless of the groups or viewpoints.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Chancellor Then, following your unamerican argument, neither should you be allowed to do these. This is America: we don't believe in censorship! It is a dangerous and treasonous notion that insists on censoring certain groups or barring certain viewpoints from the public arena (including the government) - regardless of the groups or viewpoints.

Well, if I took the mike at the football game or in the morning at school, you would be the first to hoot and holler. Cause I would be telling kids that Jesus never said one word against homosexuals. I would say that all the evidence I have seen points to the fact that most of what you preach in your churches is hogwash. Are you claiming that you really want to give me equal time? Censorship is unamerican, right? Do you really think I believe you wouldn't want to yank that mike right out of my hand? Either nobody gets "government time" to preach or we all get equal time. Me, the Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccans...everyone. Are you down with that?

[yourwrong]

Do you get to decide whether you go to one of these prisons are not? If so theirs nothing wrong with it unless they get reduced sentences for converting.

[yourwrong]

Quote by: Chancellor Then, following your unamerican argument, neither should you be allowed to do these. This is America: we don't believe in censorship! It is a dangerous and treasonous notion that insists on censoring certain groups or barring certain viewpoints from the public arena (including the government) - regardless of the groups or viewpoints.

Theirs a diffrence between censoring and not allowing that crap to be taught to prisoners unless they chose to listen to it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Well, if I took the mike at the football game or in the morning at school, you would be the first to hoot and holler. Cause I would be telling kids that Jesus never said one word against homosexuals.

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.

I would say that all the evidence I have seen points to the fact that most of what you preach in your churches is hogwash.

So what? Others would say the evidence points elsewhere. It's not really relevant to anything.

Are you claiming that you really want to give me equal time?

I'm claiming, in your football team analogy, that it's up to the football team.

Censorship is unamerican, right?

Absolutely!

Do you really think I believe you wouldn't want to yank that mike right out of my hand?

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.

Either nobody gets "government time" to preach or we all get equal time. Me, the Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccans...everyone. Are you down with that?

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.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: yourwrong Theirs a diffrence between censoring and not allowing that crap to be taught to prisoners unless they chose to listen to it.

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