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?

[JBlack]

Will prisoners get a choice of which prison to go to, or will anybody who gets locked up in Oklahoma have to go? What will be the punishment for prisoners who refuse to participate in religious programs at this prison?

Will this prison be privately funded? If not, then I think it's wrong, especially if they're only going to hire christian workers.

I wonder what the State of Oklahoma thinks about an Islamic prison or a Jewish prison.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, says the issues at stake are critically important.

“It is wrong for government to take taxpayers’ money and spend it on religious indoctrination,� Lynn said. “That’s a violation of the fundamental rights of every American.

“I strongly believe that inmates should have access to religious services of their own choosing,� he continued, “but government should never favor one faith over others or coerce inmates to participate in religion.�

I agree with the Rev.

[East of Eden]

According to one study, prisoners who underwent biblical education and counseling were half as likely to be reincarcerated.

So how is that a bad thing?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2333

[JBlack]

According to one study, prisoners who underwent biblical education and counseling were half as likely to be reincarcerated.

So how is that a bad thing?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2333

There's nothing bad about biblical education and counseling, as long as it's a choice. The problem is when some people are made to do these things. There's also a problem with a publicly funded prison only hiring Christians. This is blatant discrimination, not to mention, unconstitutional. If this prison insists on only hiring Christians, then they should only collect their funds from Christians.

[East of Eden]

According to one study, prisoners who underwent biblical education and counseling were half as likely to be reincarcerated.

So how is that a bad thing?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2333

There's nothing bad about biblical education and counseling, as long as it's a choice. The problem is when some people are made to do these things. There's also a problem with a publicly funded prison only hiring Christians. This is blatant discrimination, not to mention, unconstitutional.

Not really. What religion has been established by Congress by this happening? Speaking of Congress, they seem to only hire Christians for the position of Chaplain.

[McCulloch]

According to one study, prisoners who underwent biblical education and counseling were half as likely to be reincarcerated.

So how is that a bad thing?

http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2333

the study is not definitive and requires more research.

Here is one reason why this is junk science. Correlation does not imply causation. You cannot determine from their study whether those who get the religious indoctrination become less likely to re-offend or if those who are less likely to re-offend are more willing to take religious education. It looks to me like this is little more than a poll and could not really be called a study.

What religion has been established by Congress by this happening?

Would it not be unconstitutional for the US government to sponsor the religious instruction in one faith (Christianity) to the exclusion of others (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Baha'i, ... )

Speaking of Congress, they seem to only hire Christians for the position of Chaplain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[East of Eden]

Here is one reason why this is junk science. Correlation does not imply causation. You cannot determine from their study whether those who get the religious indoctrination become less likely to re-offend or if those who are less likely to re-offend are more willing to take religious education. It looks to me like this is little more than a poll and could not really be called a study.

It is more of a survey, which is more informative than no survey.

Would it not be unconstitutional for the US government to sponsor the religious instruction in one faith (Christianity) to the exclusion of others (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Baha'i, ... )

No, as this instruction is voluntary and there has not been a state church established, like the Church of England. The US is a de facto Christian country, being about as Christian as Egypt is Muslim or India is Hindu. If the other groups you mentioned ever become a majority it could be reconsidered.

See what was said on this by Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'father of the Constitution':

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I'm seeing two rights.

[McCulloch]

It is more of a survey, which is more informative than no survey.

But we should not jump in and set policy based on flawed surveys rather than controlled studies. More research would have to be done first.

This instruction is voluntary and there has not been a state church established, like the Church of England. The US is a de facto Christian country, being about as Christian as Egypt is Muslim or India is Hindu. If the other groups you mentioned ever become a majority it could be reconsidered.

The US is not a de facto Christian country. It is a country with a significant Christian population. While membership in the Church of England is voluntary, it is established in the UK by two things: government funding and seats in the House of Lords. The US constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.

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?

See what was said on this by Joseph Story, SCOTUS justice appointed by James Madison, the 'father of the Constitution':

§ 1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

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

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. 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."

Emphasis mine.

Speaking of Congress, they seem to only hire Christians for the position of Chaplain.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I'm seeing two rights.

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? 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.

[Abraxas]

Tell me, East of Eden, would you be alright with, say, a number of wealthy Islamic individuals or groups buying up large numbers or prisons, removing the Bible from them and forcing all the convicts in them to undergo religious indoctrination? Further, those who convert would be given special privileges over those who do not, up to and including early release. All of this would of course be done on the taxpayer dollar.

Put another way, do you simply not have a problem with religion taking over the business of the state or do you just support the spread and enforcement of Christianity by any means possible?

[East of Eden]

The US is not a de facto Christian country. It is a country with a significant Christian population. While membership in the Church of England is voluntary, it is established in the UK by two things: government funding and seats in the House of Lords. The US constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.

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

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.

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.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

The Federal Gov't. does currently pay for chaplains.

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.

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. Here are the prison chaplain qualifications:

Qualifications of Correctional Prison Chaplains

Correctional Chaplains Educational Requirements:

1.Educationally the prison chaplain must have successfully completed an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university.
2.In addition, have a Master of Divinity degree or the equivalent from an American Theological School (ATS) accredited residential seminary or school of theology.

Ecclesiastical Requirements for a Prison Chaplain Career:

1.Ordination or membership in an ecclesiastically recognized religious institute of vowed men or women;
2.Experience needed is at least 2 years of autonomous experience as a religious/spiritual leader in a parish or specialized ministry setting;
3.Necessary is a current ecclesiastical endorsement by the recognized endorsing body of one's faith tradition;
4.Demonstration of a willingness to provide and coordinate programs for inmates of all faiths;
5.Possess the necessary credentials and ability to provide worship services in his/her faith tradition.

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?