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?

[Solon]

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?

There is this and this. Jefferson's bill for religious freedom in the state of Virginia and Madison's defense of said bill which he championed against Patrick Henry's bill which would have established several (Christian) denominations.

Edited to add a link to Henry's bill for completeness.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

With respect, I think there's greater issues involved here. Folks are being considered for release based on their acceptance and adherence to religious indoctrination.

We should consider whether such belief systems are grounded in reality, and even morality. This prison is going to teach that there's a god who hates certain folks, initiating within the adherent a certain hatred. It's a very dangerous way to go about "rehabilitating" folks.

What do we do when these folks are released and they act on God's edict that some folks should be stoned to death?

[East of Eden]

What do we do when these folks are released and they act on God's edict that some folks should be stoned to death?

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

BTW, where is this happening outside of Islam?

[East of Eden]

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.

You completely missed my point. As I said, the amendment process is the right way to change the constitution, not by judicial fiat as was done with Roe v. Wade.

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.

A judiciary unmoored from the constitution is government by whim.

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.

That phrase from one of the founders has become the leftists battle cry. Interesting it was forgotten for 50 years after. Here is more from Jefferson:

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.�

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,� which petitioned:

“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.�

As is evident, Jefferson’s belief in a separation between church and state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction.

Nearly 160 years after Jefferson’s death, in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice William Rehnquist offered the decision of the United States Supreme Court:

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history….The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years....

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]….The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.�

Offering his dissenting opinion on Michael Newdow’s “pledge lawsuit,� 9th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said, in part:

“My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. “God Bless America� and “America The Beautiful� will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!�

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.�

The above statement indicates Jefferson wasn't even a deist.

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.

Just pointing out the double standard. First you say it doesn't matter what the founders said, then you cite Jefferson.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

What do we do when these folks are released and they act on God's edict that some folks should be stoned to death?

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

Who determines which among the many branches of Christian theology is the "good" theology?

BTW, where is this happening outside of Islam?

Abortion clinics for one. They've been bombed, their doctors shot and even killed.

Or are those perpetrators not "true Christians(tm)"?

[JoeyKnothead]

Some more info from here:

...Robinson said the $42 million project would be financed with bonds.

Public funds.

...Classes in literacy, General Educational Development requirements and life skills would be offered, and Wayland University, a Christian college in Plainview, Texas, has agreed to put a satellite campus in the prison.

"They don't have to go to church, or Bible study, but they have to participate in the curriculum, which is Christ-centered," Robinson said.

How can you have a "born again Christian" staff and not expect them to attempt Bible studies? How can you have a "Christ-centered" curriculum that doesn't refer back to the Bible?

He possesses legal opinions that say that as a religious organization, the prison will be able to hire only people of like faith, he said.

Religious organization. This part added for those who think this is not an establishing of religion.

Why are religious organizations exempt from the laws everyone else are expected to follow?

[East of Eden]

Who determines which among the many branches of Christian theology is the "good" theology?

Do you know any who believe in your straw man argument of stoning people?

Abortion clinics for one. They've been bombed, their doctors shot and even killed.

Or are those perpetrators not "true Christians(tm)"?

No they aren't true Christians. They are acting contrary and in spite of the teachings of Christ. He harmed no one. The Islamofascists are acting because of the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

[McCulloch]

You completely missed my point. As I said, the amendment process is the right way to change the constitution, not by judicial fiat as was done with Roe v. Wade.

I'll take that as a retraction of your statement that a living constitution is a dead one. Now we are simply arguing about the means by which a constitution should be changed not whether it should change.

I believe that the role of the judiciary is to interpret not to change the constitution. A court cannot strike down a law merely because the statute is obviously irrational, unjust or arises from legislators' corrupt motives. It may only strike down a law if the flaw in the statute rises to the level of a constitutional violation.

[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I don't see the judiciary enacting legislation in this decision, nor in Roe v Wade. They are correctly and constitutionally within their bounds, stating which provisions of the constitution are violated with the enactment of anti-miscegenation laws.

A judiciary unmoored from the constitution is government by whim.

If you ever had to sit through a supreme courts deliberation of a constitutional issue, you would not have the audacity to use the word whim to describe the process.

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.

Just pointing out the double standard. First you say it doesn't matter what the founders said, then you cite Jefferson.

Just pointing out the double standard. You invoke the holy blessing from the Founders, but only when they agree with you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

Who determines which among the many branches of Christian theology is the "good" theology?

Do you know any who believe in your straw man argument of stoning people?

I was speaking metaphorically, alluding to folks harming others by various means, and not just stoning.

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Abortion clinics for one. They've been bombed, their doctors shot and even killed.

Or are those perpetrators not "true Christians(tm)"?

No they aren't true Christians. They are acting contrary and in spite of the teachings of Christ. He harmed no one. The Islamofascists are acting because of the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

If you wanna consider Islam, what if it's the "good" theology and the Christians miss the mark? Since they ostensibly worship the same Abrahamic God, how can we know they don't have the "good" theology?

When one acts according to their interpretation of what their Christian God wants, and blow up or shoot folks how are we to know they aren't following the "good" theology?

Aren't Christians acting according to the 'prophet' Jesus? How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God? How can we know Jesus has the "good" theology?

Who determines what constitutes "good" Christian theology?

[East of Eden]

I'll take that as a retraction of your statement that a living constitution is a dead one. Now we are simply arguing about the means by which a constitution should be changed not whether it should change.

I prefer democratic change via amendments as opposed to dictatorial change from an out of control judiciary. It is interesting that many of the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin were sanctioned by the courts. They often do what the elites want, such as in the Dred Scott case, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the 1962 school prayer case, and in Roe.

I don't see the judiciary enacting legislation in this decision, nor in Roe v Wade. They are correctly and constitutionally within their bounds, stating which provisions of the constitution are violated with the enactment of anti-miscegenation laws.

Not only was the 'right to an abotion' an invention, it ignores the fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Can anyone tell us what crimes unborn children have committed for which they should lose their lives? Arguments which support abortion are pure nonsense and evil in nature.

Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade:

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.

If you ever had to sit through a supreme courts deliberation of a constitutional issue, you would not have the audacity to use the word whim to describe the process.

Whim dressed up in legal trappings, as Justice White more or less said above.

Just pointing out the double standard. You invoke the holy blessing from the Founders, but only when they agree with you.

The Justice Story quote I posted earlier sums up well what the general consensus was among the Founders, whether or not Jefferson was in the majority on that.