Christian Prison

[Sir Rhetor]

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... rison.html
http://www.drudge.com/news/127323/oklah ... ian-prison

So apparently Christians saved up enough money to build their very own prison. This prison will hire only Christians, which is certainly against the law. Another important piece of information is that it is not a maximum security prison, and it will only be for prisoners at the end of their sentence.

The prison is obviously set up to be primed for proselytizers, who will share the Bible with the criminals.

Is this a good idea, or is it discriminatory, disastrous, and ironic?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

Not to someone who's mind is already made up to reject God. Read the survey with the aforementioned results I posted earlier.

As mentioned before, there's the whole causation / corelation issue. When folks believe they must act in a certain fashion because their favored god is apt to get upset, then they're more likely to act in a certain fashion. This is not evidence of a deity, but basically the power of positive thinking. You're asking folks who've admitted to religious belief to confirm that belief based on their actions, and not any evidence that deity actually influenced their lives.

Of course if I ever get arrested in Oklahoma I'll start that whole pious Christian deal and hope to get sent to the easy prison (blame my ills on Satan and all that instead of addressing the underlying issues).

I'm not a con man.

Neither am I.

I didn't ask you, but I 'preciate the sharing. You asked why I don't start my own religion and I told you. My point is that I have no way to show one's actions are the product of a god, so trying to declare such is a sort of con.

[East of Eden]

It doesn't (yet) for this one specifically, however other prisons do have release programs for 'good Christians' and something tells me this one probably won't be different.

The link said prisoners also get released early by going through similar secular programs. Sounds like equal treatment to me. As the link also discusses the positive changes in the inmates after the Christian program, what's the problem?

I could say the same of a lot of Christians in the US who are pushing for Christian law in place of what currently exists.

You could, but you would be wrong. What, only atheist-based laws are legitimate?

[East of Eden]

As mentioned before, there's the whole causation / corelation issue. When folks believe they must act in a certain fashion because their favored god is apt to get upset, then they're more likely to act in a certain fashion. This is not evidence of a deity, but basically the power of positive thinking. You're asking folks who've admitted to religious belief to confirm that belief based on their actions, and not any evidence that deity actually influenced their lives.

Since it's just a matter of belief in an amorphous 'god' concept, do you think prisoners going through a Muslim education program would be half as likely to be reincarcerated? My guess is the opposite would be true.

Of course if I ever get arrested in Oklahoma I'll start that whole pious Christian deal and hope to get sent to the easy prison (blame my ills on Satan and all that instead of addressing the underlying issues).

The 'Christian deal' is exactly what addresses the underlying issue, sin. This is why the aforementioned inmates are half as likely to be reincarcerated.

I didn't ask you, but I 'preciate the sharing. You asked why I don't start my own religion and I told you. My point is that I have no way to show one's actions are the product of a god, so trying to declare such is a sort of con.

Of course I was being facetious, but someone has to be able to duplicate the theory that Christianity is just a made up con that can dramatically change people's lives.

[McCulloch]

So which church is being established in this example? Methodist? Baptist? Catholic? Anglican?

OK, I see the disconnect. You believe that only a specific denomination can be established. I believe that you will find that the courts have ruled that it would be unconstitutional to establish the Christian religion in general as much as it would be to establish Missouri Synod Lutherans. The United States of America is a constitutionally secular nation not a non-denominational Christian nation.

I don't see what becoming a majority has to do with anything. If the Evangelical Christians have a government funded prison ministry, why shouldn't the Scientologists?

Because there are only 25,000 of them. If there were ever enough to justify prison or military chaplains, I'd have no problem with it.

You and I see the role of a prison or military chaplain in a secular nation differently. In prison as in the military, the prisoner or soldier can be isolated from his faith community by an act of the government. And yet he has the constitutional right to practice his own religion. Thus, the government provides, were numbers warrant, someone to minister to his perceived spiritual needs. That is the role of a chaplain. If a prisoner requests the services of a chaplain, I have no problem with that. I don't even have a problem with the state footing the bill, since it is by government action that these people have been isolated from their faith community. However, I believe that it crosses the line when the chaplain ceases only to administer religious rites to the believers in those institutions and begins the process of conversion and indoctrination. If a prisoner initiates a conversion and requests the services of a religious leader to help the process, that is one thing. It should be allowed. However, if the state wishes to fund an evangelistic effort aimed at such conversions, that is unconstitutional.

I hope that your view of the constitution has progressed from the nineteenth century.

I don't think the intent of the Founder's has changed, despite later bad court decisions.

I don't see the founders as apostles or the constitution as holy writ. Nor did they. That is why they built in a process for revision and judicial interpretation. Any country's constitution is an evolving doctrine. I will side with the learned Judge rather than with your amateur opinion on this matter, unless you have evidence that this decision is a bad one.

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Not in the Constitution.

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

I don't quite understand. The Congress, contrary to the principle of the separation of church and state, appoints a largely symbolic religious post of Chaplin to each of the Houses. From that you conclude that it is OK to fund Christian prisons?

As I said before, we already have government funded prison and military chaplains, and they are not symbolic.

My point was that the post of chaplain to the two houses of Congress is largely symbolic. Military and prison chaplains arguably serve a constitutional requirement to provide religious rites to soldiers and prisoners.

That's like saying that because God is mentioned on the money, it would be OK for the federal government to fund christian missionary work.

You mean like when Jefferson approved funding Christian missionaries to Indians in the Northwest Territories?

Jefferson's plan was for first nations peoples to give up their own cultures, religions, and lifestyles in favor of western European culture, Christian religion, and a sedentary agricultural lifestyle. In cases where they resisted assimilation, Jefferson believed that they should be forcefully removed from their land and sent west. It appears as if he could not consistently apply his own cherished principles of liberty and a people's self-determination to the people who settled his own land before him. In short, on this issue, Jefferson had an ethical and moral blind spot. He was a hypocrite.

[East of Eden]

OK, I see the disconnect. You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

I believe that you will find that the courts have ruled that it would be unconstitutional to establish the Christian religion in general as much as it would be to establish Missouri Synod Lutherans.

This prison program doesn't establish Christianity, any more than it did when vets used the GI Bill to go to seminary.

I don't see the founders as apostles or the constitution as holy writ. Nor did they. That is why they built in a process for revision and judicial interpretation. Any country's constitution is an evolving doctrine.

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution. What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship. Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

I will side with the learned Judge rather than with your amateur opinion on this matter, unless you have evidence that this decision is a bad one.

You mean the learned Judge Story I posted earlier?

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

This prison program doesn't establish Christianity, any more than it did when vets used the GI Bill to go to seminary.

LOL

A Christian prison.

The GI Bill is a contract to offer money for education upon service. It is the soldier's money, not the government's.

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution.

Not at all. It merely reflects that things change.

What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship.

A somewhat accurate assessment, if one considers that ultimately someone has to determine what is constitutional or not.

Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

The Constitution is designed to thwart purely mob rule, but I agree in principle. However, we don't have to successfully change the Constitution to show that something is unconstitutional.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

We should be compelled to revise any thought or proclamation we deem wrong. This includes the Constitution.

I see a lot of this "it used to be" sort of reasoning in church/state issues. I propose we make our decisions based on what is right, and not so much on how folks acted hundreds or thousands of years ago. If we deem a state once violated the Constitution, then we should say so, and not use it as a defense to continue an unconstitutional practice.

[Abraxas]

It doesn't (yet) for this one specifically, however other prisons do have release programs for 'good Christians' and something tells me this one probably won't be different.

The link said prisoners also get released early by going through similar secular programs. Sounds like equal treatment to me. As the link also discusses the positive changes in the inmates after the Christian program, what's the problem?

The problem is that the program gives Christians more options to get out early than non-Christians. The secular programs are full to overflowing, creating new programs that only Christians have access to means the state is providing more options and a shorter wait on the waiting list (as Christians can use secular programs where non-Christians cannot use Christian ones).

Further, once again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because those who go to church behave better does not mean the church made them behave better, it could be that those inclined to behave themselves are more likely to go to church.

I could say the same of a lot of Christians in the US who are pushing for Christian law in place of what currently exists.

You could, but you would be wrong. What, only atheist-based laws are legitimate?

No, I wouldnt. Fact of the matter is there are a number of groups out there who would like to exile/execute non-Christians in the US. Some think that by cleansing the nation it will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Second Coming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a segment of Christianity that believes they are locked in a holy war against Islam and Atheism and believes that Christianity should be the law of the land, both literally and figuratively.

Define atheist-based laws. There are a number of laws that exist that overlap, like murder, robbery, etc.; that a state has every interest in maintaining even without a religious dogma to fall back on. Many more that arose out of secular concerns like which side of the street you drive on and what day you vote. Id turn the question around on you, ask which Religion only laws are legitimate but I suspect we would never agree on what qualifies as legitimate in that regard.

[East of Eden]

It doesn't (yet) for this one specifically, however other prisons do have release programs for 'good Christians' and something tells me this one probably won't be different.

The link said prisoners also get released early by going through similar secular programs. Sounds like equal treatment to me. As the link also discusses the positive changes in the inmates after the Christian program, what's the problem?

The problem is that the program gives Christians more options to get out early than non-Christians. The secular programs are full to overflowing, creating new programs that only Christians have access to means the state is providing more options and a shorter wait on the waiting list (as Christians can use secular programs where non-Christians cannot use Christian ones).

Further, once again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because those who go to church behave better does not mean the church made them behave better, it could be that those inclined to behave themselves are more likely to go to church.

I could say the same of a lot of Christians in the US who are pushing for Christian law in place of what currently exists.

You could, but you would be wrong. What, only atheist-based laws are legitimate?

No, I wouldnt. Fact of the matter is there are a number of groups out there who would like to exile/execute non-Christians in the US.

Never heard of them. I think they need a new publicist.

Some think that by cleansing the nation it will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Second Coming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a segment of Christianity that believes they are locked in a holy war against Islam and Atheism and believes that Christianity should be the law of the land, both literally and figuratively.

I don't know about that, but radical Islam has declared itself to be in a holy war against infidels like us.

Define atheist-based laws. There are a number of laws that exist that overlap, like murder, robbery, etc.; that a state has every interest in maintaining even without a religious dogma to fall back on. Many more that arose out of secular concerns like which side of the street you drive on and what day you vote. Id turn the question around on you, ask which Religion only laws are legitimate but I suspect we would never agree on what qualifies as legitimate in that regard.

When someone participates on our democracy, the source of the values they bring to the table are nobody else's business.

[McCulloch]

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution.

Spoken like a true theologian. I disagree. Every country's constitution must be adaptable, to change, slowly and with sober reflection, with the changing values of the society it represents. Case in point, the Constitution of the United States of America has a number of amendments

• Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery.
• Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law.
• Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.
• Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
• Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials.
• Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

It look to me that you have a pretty actively dead constitution.

What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship.

No, what I advocate is known as the separation of powers, trias politica or checks and balances. This principle is the model for the governance of modern democratic states.

Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

No need to change it. The Supreme Court, acting within its constitutional mandate, have ruled on what it means. If you feel that the ruling was improper, then be honest and get the political support to change the constitution, thus over-ruling the Court.

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

According to my reasoning, yes, you should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's remarkable insight. However, why would you? It has served your country well and has been the model for many other countries' subsequent constitutions.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

No, I have not done that research. Is it relevant? At the time of the writing of the US constitution, the individual states' legislatures were not bound by the terms of the bill of rights. That came later.
In September 1776, Jefferson was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. During his term in the House, Jefferson established freedom of religion.

[Sir Rhetor]

To clarify, the prison cannot be funded publicly. Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release basically saying what I just did.