posted
I'm posting this mainly for Dag's legal opinion. Is this faith-promoting thing legal? Seems a fairly clear case of federal funding for a particular faith. But lawyers are good at seeing nuances. How do you think it'll go?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't delve too deeply into it at this point.
My intitial impressions is that exclusivity will be hugely problematic. If an inmate can't get the benefit without professing faith, then there will probably be an issue. As long as there's a secular alternative plus allowance for any religious group which wants to set up a program and for which there are prisoners who wish to participate, it might be able to pass muster on a neutrality principle.
There are many nuances I'd have to look in to to even form an opinion, and that opinion would still be little better than a guess.
But, off the top of my head, I can see a way it might survive judicial scrutiny, so that should be something.
If you bump this Thursday I'll try to delve into more depth.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the article is saying what I think it is saying, then technically, it's illegal. But is it neccesarily a bad thing? That is the real question.
Posts: 2 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest that the anti-religious group in question put together its own program for rehabilitation. If the state refuses to treat it equally, then you really do have a violation of A1, and that will need to be stopped -- not by limiting the religious freedom of prisoners who want to go Catholic or Jewish or whatever, but by expanding opportunities for those that don't.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An organisation of 6000 members, to compete with churches covering the nation and hundreds of years old? You have an interesting definition of equality.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I suggest that the anti-religious group in question put together its own program for rehabilitation. If the state refuses to treat it equally, then you really do have a violation of A1, and that will need to be stopped -- not by limiting the religious freedom of prisoners who want to go Catholic or Jewish or whatever, but by expanding opportunities for those that don't.
That's a pretty deceptive way of putting it. A "Single Faith" initiative would mean that if I were in that prison, I'd have to profess Christianity, or lose out. Which, of course, is exactly what these initiatives are all about.
People wouldn't be so edgy about any whiff of religious anything anywhere near the government if it weren't for the fact that some Christians are adamant about finding any way they can to squeeze past the First Amendment.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a pretty deceptive way of putting it.
Only if one thinks one can tell from the article exactly what's going on - and anyone who can do that is psychic.
quote:A "Single Faith" initiative would mean that if I were in that prison, I'd have to profess Christianity,
Not necessarily, which is why I raised the points I did above.
There's not enough description of the program to know if single-faith means that program will be single-faith but their might be other such programs at the same prison or if the only program allowed at that program will be single-faith.
Available options might be the institution of another single-faith program at the prison or transfer to a prison with a single-faith program of your choice.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a hard time understanding exactly how the program works.
Is there any merit to the arguement that using legal force to coerce theology out of the prison system is in fact asking the government to support atheism?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a pretty deceptive way of putting it.
Only if one thinks one can tell from the article exactly what's going on - and anyone who can do that is psychic.
Once bit, twice shy. This isn't the first time it's happened. You remember the Faith Based program last year where the Catholic guy was forced to convert to some form of evangelical Protestantism, or be written down as incorrigible.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:A "Single Faith" initiative would mean that if I were in that prison, I'd have to profess Christianity,
Not necessarily, which is why I raised the points I did above.
There's not enough description of the program to know if single-faith means that program will be single-faith but their might be other such programs at the same prison or if the only program allowed at that program will be single-faith.
Available options might be the institution of another single-faith program at the prison or transfer to a prison with a single-faith program of your choice.
Even then, you'd have to choose one. Why should that ever be something the government has a right to make you do?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, BlackBlade. That's a piece of propaganda that's been used by those trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else.
Keeping religion out of government is not the same as sponsoring atheism. No one is demanding that you say, "There is no God". Rather, they're demanding that you not bring God into government.
I'm constantly amazed that there are people who can't see the difference.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked with a guy who got an internship that gave educational credit that were excepted by most universities. He worked there for six months, without pay, for the scholastic credit he would recieve. It was at a religious television station, though he was told from the moment that he applied on until near the end, that his religious affilitiation would in no way effect his grade. That would put in jeopardy all of their government funding for such intership projects.
Still, at his last evaluation, where his grade was to be given him for his records, the administrator said, "Let me put it bluntly. Convert or fail."
This was, of course, a stupid unproductive way to convert anyone. The wall between church and state does as much good for the church as for the state, making sure the churches convert on merit, not false conversions based on threat of power.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by making sure that we don't all have to convert (or pretend to convert) to the most popular or most powerful church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see anything wrong with helping inmates rehabilitate through using their pre-existing faith, or through evangelical methods.
At the same time, I hear sL's complaint, that such a program would all too easily discriminate against non-religious inmates, or inmates that are of a religion that is not a part of the program's make-up.
So, I don't think release from prison should be contingent in participation in these programs. If they work, fine-- but let us judge rehabilitation through counseling and through observation of behavior, not by membership.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still, at his last evaluation, where his grade was to be given him for his records, the administrator said, "Let me put it bluntly. Convert or fail."
I can't even begin to express the extent to which this kind of thing angers me. You are exactly right, Dan, that it's a terrible way to "convert" anyone. Heck, I even have problems with the word convert, because I don't believe in the power of man to save anybody - that's God's doing - and the idea that it's okay to force people to believe, it's despicable.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: No, BlackBlade. That's a piece of propaganda that's been used by those trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else.
Keeping religion out of government is not the same as sponsoring atheism. No one is demanding that you say, "There is no God". Rather, they're demanding that you not bring God into government.
I'm constantly amazed that there are people who can't see the difference.
I have difficulty seeing the distinction as making people say lines like "one nation under God..." is in effect forcing people to acknowledge at least the existance of God.
The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" seems to indicate a rift between the government and organized churches/religions. Does it state a seperation of "God and State?" Call it semantics all you want but I do not see a universal governmental policy of not endorsing the existance of God, merely an organized belief structure."
I still find the article to be unclear as to the particulars of the program (I am probably just stupid in this regard)
Here is a concept I am working out in my head. When you are not in prison you are free to be approached by people who wish to share their beliefs or ideas with you. If you are incarcerated you are then under a different set of principles and protocols. (I can't figure out a good way to ask this question) While in prison are you being "protected" from the effects of faith promotion? Are you simply being "left alone?" If an inmate is seeking religious guidance does the government keep religion away, or does it allow groups to lobby to help the inmate?
If representatives of any religion asked to setup a venue where it could address inmates that are interested is that wrong? Or is it walking on ice if a person uses religious piety as a mark of changed behavior? I am just asking questions as I am not sure as to how we "protect" people from having religion presented inappropriately and ignoring the obvious positive effects of moral guidance.
Belle: That sort of thing is foolish and stupid to me too, I wish it was just the religious that did it. I had a philosophy teacher that in no uncertain terms gave me an F because I exhibited a leaning towards deontology, with a pinch of Mill for good measure, and he did not seem pleased with that. I met with him 3 times (I am naturally a shy non confrontational person, so it was hard for me) and he gave me the run around as to why he was failing me.
I took the class again from another less anti diest teacher who still did not agree with me on many things, but he gave me an A in his class.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think the issue here is the prison funding the religious program, not merely allowing it.
Ah,
I must have missed that part, I do not see why prisons would need to fund such initiatives, I would think the faiths attempting to be involved in such a program would fund themselves.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have difficulty seeing the distinction as making people say lines like "one nation under God..." is in effect forcing people to acknowledge at least the existance of God.
Indeed, which is why people lobby to have that removed from your pledge.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone have a source for this besides the FFRF? It seems to me that an article written by the plaintiff may not be the most trustworthy source to base a discussion off of.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: No, BlackBlade. That's a piece of propaganda that's been used by those trying to shove their personal beliefs down the throats of everyone else.
Keeping religion out of government is not the same as sponsoring atheism. No one is demanding that you say, "There is no God". Rather, they're demanding that you not bring God into government.
I'm constantly amazed that there are people who can't see the difference.
I have difficulty seeing the distinction as making people say lines like "one nation under God..." is in effect forcing people to acknowledge at least the existance of God.
That's right. And that's why despite the fact that I do believe in God, and think everyone else should as well, I am absolutely on the side of the people trying to have that taken out of the pledge. And the people trying to have "In God We Trust" taken off US currency. Those are a couple of things that are left over from a time when people were simply blind to the fact that not everyone agrees.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The phrase "Seperation of Church and State" seems to indicate a rift between the government and organized churches/religions. Does it state a seperation of "God and State?" Call it semantics all you want but I do not see a universal governmental policy of not endorsing the existance of God, merely an organized belief structure."
Bottom line is, the Founders knew very well that when it comes to religion, people will try and shove their views down the throats of others. So they very wisely placed the entire subject outside of the government. It's off limits, and it should be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
StarLisa: I couldn't help thinking "But did the founding fathers intend to take that seperation as far as to completely ignore the existance of god?" and then I thought, "Why does it matter what the founding fathers intended? It's not as if the constitution they divised was perfect, so why do you second guess what they intended when they are all dead?" Lets ASSUME the founding fathers expected people to believe in at least some sort of God and that they abhored aetheism, why does that even matter at all? The nation exists for today's people not for them.
Now that I continue to think about it, I consider that although God (in my opinion) helped create this country, he did not design it to be a vehicle for converting people to Christianity.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we need to stop relying so heavily on precedent. Call it judicial activism if you will and slant it negatively all you want, but if we went entirely by precedent, our country would never progress.
Precedent relies on there existing somewhere in the past a "golden age," and people tend to assume that whatever those who contributed to framing the Constitution intended is what we should go by. Say what you will, but in this "golden age" only the white male aristocracy had power. That's not the kind of country I would choose to live in today.
Don't get me wrong, I am entirely for the separation of church and state. This means that I think the government should promote neither religion nor irreligion. I just don't think that saying we need separation of church and state because that's what the founding fathers intended is a good argument.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade-as far as religion in prison, religion and religious services are available in all denominations willing to send a representative into the building. Whether you are Islamic, Baptist, or Jewish, a person of faith will attend to your spiritual needs. There is no restriction there.
What is happening here is an attempt at rehabilitiation of the inmates. They offer help in everything from job training to drug free programs. What is good is if it is people of faith serving those who are in need. What is bad is when some of those services and the rewards those services provide, are tied to conversion, donations, or proclamations of faith. Two extra hours of television a night in exchange for staying drug free is good. Two extra hours of television a night in exchange for saying the Rosary, not so good.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that some people claim that saying the Rosary is what kept them off of drugs, and they insist it work for everyone else, so that is thier plan.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once bit, twice shy. This isn't the first time it's happened. You remember the Faith Based program last year where the Catholic guy was forced to convert to some form of evangelical Protestantism, or be written down as incorrigible.
Yep. That doesn't prove that the programs can't be done in a non-coercive manner.
quote:Even then, you'd have to choose one. Why should that ever be something the government has a right to make you do?
No, you wouldn't. You would be perfectly free to join a rehab program with religious affiliation.
quote:What is good is if it is people of faith serving those who are in need. What is bad is when some of those services and the rewards those services provide, are tied to conversion, donations, or proclamations of faith. Two extra hours of television a night in exchange for staying drug free is good. Two extra hours of television a night in exchange for saying the Rosary, not so good.
But what is also good is integrating faith and rehabilitation. Faith is transformative, and a program that integrates faith with attempts to transform can be more beneficial to some people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that some people claim that saying the Rosary is what kept them off of drugs, and they insist it work for everyone else, so that is thier plan.
And that would be wrong (to insist). But it would not be wrong to offer to share that experience and to help others achieve it if they want to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once bit, twice shy. This isn't the first time it's happened. You remember the Faith Based program last year where the Catholic guy was forced to convert to some form of evangelical Protestantism, or be written down as incorrigible.
Yep. That doesn't prove that the programs can't be done in a non-coercive manner.
But Dag, the whole reason why the government is barred from dealing in religion is that we shouldn't have to rely on that possibility.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Even then, you'd have to choose one. Why should that ever be something the government has a right to make you do?
No, you wouldn't. You would be perfectly free to join a rehab program with religious affiliation.
Please tell me you meant without.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But what is also good is integrating faith and rehabilitation. Faith is transformative, and a program that integrates faith with attempts to transform can be more beneficial to some people.
Sez you. Me, I say that faith transforms perfectly reasonable people into brainwashed zombies. Why should the government take your opinion over mine, using both our taxes?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes I did. Either one that flat out doesn't mention it or one that specifically relies on an atheist or secular humanist viewpoint.
quote:But Dag, the whole reason why the government is barred from dealing in religion is that we shouldn't have to rely on that possibility.
The government is NOT barred from dealing in religion. For example, when the government imprisons someone, it has a duty to allow access to the means to participate in one's faith. Providing military personnel access to the means of religious worship is also a legitimate reason for government to deal in religion.
The problem is when we have the government inserting itself into areas in which religion has a legitimate role. Here, the government is asking private parties to establish rehab programs. It is offering those rehab programs to inmates in order to accomplish a legitimate government - reducing recidivism.
If religious rehabilitation programs can serve that purpose, then it is a legitimate government practice to offer them - provided it is done neutrally. This means that the benefit must be available to all people regardless of religious faith, and that all faiths (and equivalent secular philosophies) have an opportunity to create such programs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it : Many religious organisations are supported in whole or in part by the contributions of the faithful. Isn't it a conflict of interest, then, to try to heal people by making them into believers? The 'healer' has a monetary interest in there being as many members as possible of his particular congregation.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sez you. Me, I say that faith transforms perfectly reasonable people into brainwashed zombies. Why should the government take your opinion over mine, using both our taxes?
Why should it take yours over mine?
My procedure accomadates all beliefs.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the one that is now being suggested, apparently, does not.
We don't know that yet. The article is posted by an advocacy group with an ax to grind, and still doesn't include the smoking gun that would render this definitely non-neutral.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: It's funny, I'm the exact opposite. As an atheist, I have absolutely no problem with saying "Under God" in the pledge. I think it's a beautiful metaphore. Our nation is good. Our nation is the best on earth. It's exactly the kind of thing one should have in a loyalty oath.
posted
Let me rephrase. In the absence of scientific studies showing the effect of religious rehab, why should the government take your opinion over mine, using taxpayer money to do so? I feel that the burden of proof is on the guy who wants to spend money, to show that it will have some effect. Both our solutions are neutral, but mine is free.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me rephrase. In the absence of scientific studies showing the effect of religious rehab, why should the government take your opinion over mine, using taxpayer money to do so?
Why should the government take your word over mine? It's the same question.
The government would certainly be within its rights to evaluate the success of the programs based on outcomes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They have my permission not to fund those either. The point is, why should they spend money on something not proven to work? Now, a research project would be another matter; but just throwing money at the problem because the suggested solution is vaguely faith-related? Ridiculous.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't rehab programs supposed to be about seven times more efficient in preventing drug abuse than normal incarceration?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me rephrase. In the absence of scientific studies showing the effect of religious rehab, why should the government take your opinion over mine, using taxpayer money to do so?
Why should the government take your word over mine? It's the same question.
The government would certainly be within its rights to evaluate the success of the programs based on outcomes.
Would you like to know AA or NA statistics on rehab? So would I but they don't publish them. Yet the government and judicial systems regularly require people to attend meetings as part of certain conditions of their parole and/or probation. I believe that the statistics show that with or without AA people have about a 10% chance of quitting drugs or alcohol successfully.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: StarLisa: I couldn't help thinking "But did the founding fathers intend to take that seperation as far as to completely ignore the existance of god?" and then I thought, "Why does it matter what the founding fathers intended? It's not as if the constitution they divised was perfect, so why do you second guess what they intended when they are all dead?" Lets ASSUME the founding fathers expected people to believe in at least some sort of God and that they abhored aetheism, why does that even matter at all? The nation exists for today's people not for them.
Now that I continue to think about it, I consider that although God (in my opinion) helped create this country, he did not design it to be a vehicle for converting people to Christianity.
The founders did not intend to deny the existence of God. Here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
posted
Luckily not mentioning God doesn't deny any existence he or she or they may or may not have
Also, most mentions to God that people are trying to get removed are quite recent additions, so its rather funny to appeal to the founders as reasons to keep the mentions around. Common reasons for supporting the addition of "under god" to the pledge and "in god we trust" to the money (and becoming the national motto) include desire to differentiate this country from the "godless communists" and show that good citizens were Christians.
Those bills as introduced would be smacked down as blatantly unconstitutional today. We allow their effects to remain because we have grown accustomed to them.
And of course, several of the founding fathers left behind letters quite explicit about how they found it useful to put on a public Christian face regardless of personal belief; others, such as George Washington, merely ignore religious belief in their personal writings despite the occasional mention of it in public. Both of those groups are commonly classed as Deists, though many don't seem to have believed in any God to speak of beyond a nebulous notion not involving any particular influence. And yes, some were Christians.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: StarLisa: I couldn't help thinking "But did the founding fathers intend to take that seperation as far as to completely ignore the existance of god?" and then I thought, "Why does it matter what the founding fathers intended? It's not as if the constitution they divised was perfect, so why do you second guess what they intended when they are all dead?" Lets ASSUME the founding fathers expected people to believe in at least some sort of God and that they abhored aetheism, why does that even matter at all? The nation exists for today's people not for them.
Now that I continue to think about it, I consider that although God (in my opinion) helped create this country, he did not design it to be a vehicle for converting people to Christianity.
The founders did not intend to deny the existence of God. Here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Again right now I am entertaining the idea that what the founding fathers intended is almost unimportant. They created the government and handed the reigns to us, ought we to put them back into their decomposed bony fingers?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I don't doubt that faith can help without being coercive. The problem is insureing that that.
The idea that the prisoners can choose non-faith based programs instead of faith based ones exemplifies the old plan of "Separate but Equal." The questions remain, do we have funding to do both? do we have the personell to do both? do we have someone who can arbitrate and insure that they remain equal?
Your reasoning assumes that there are organized secular institutions similar to organized religious ones. While there are groups that are organized and are secular, very few, and none of any signifigance, are organized for the promotion of secular beliefs.
KoM, the feasibility and reliability of such programs in general are a debate for elsewhere. Here we are debating, basically, if the benefits of faith based programs are worth the risks when compared to non-faith based programs.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another question, which is one of public funding. We're not just talking about private religious groups having public access. Which itself is problematic. We're talking about private religious groups getting public funding. Which means funding from me. It means that I'm forced to pay for something that is anathema to me.
It's bad enough when I'm forced to help pay for people who don't want to work or for bad art that needs "public" sponsorship to survive. But when I'm forced to do something that's against my religious principles, because someone else's religious principles think it's good, that's a Very Bad Thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
