Theocracy in Action
Prison Fellowship Head Responds to Charges against Rehab Program
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051108c.asp
[excerpt]
interview
Prison Fellowship Head Responds to Charges against Rehab Program
CBN.com –A liberal church-state group is taking the faith-based Prison
Fellowship ministry to federal court. Americans United for Separation of
Church and State says that Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program for
inmates in the state of Iowa is unconstitutional.
The group claims that the prison ministry's Inner Change program seeks to
convert prisoners to Christianity at taxpayer expense, and it accuses
Prison Fellowship of turning part of an Iowa state prison into "an
evangelical church." The federal court trial is underway right now in Des
Moines, Iowa.
CBN News Anchor Lee Webb sat down with Prison Fellowship President Mark
Earley to ask him about the charge that the program is unconstitutional.
LEE WEBB: Mark, how do you respond to the charge that your prison program
violates the establishment clause in the Constitution?
MARK EARLEY: Well, Lee, we obviously disagree with it. This program is
entirely voluntary. Inmates are free to choose to come into the program as
they wish, and leave as they wish. We let anyone of any faith in. We do
make it clear that it is a Christian program, based on the teachings of
Jesus and the Bible, and we have to remember that inmates still have
freedom of religion when they're in prison…And this is a program that's
offering great results to the states. We have two million people in prison
now in the United States. Six hundred thousand of them will get out this
year, and they're returning to prison within three years at the rate of 50
percent. In this program, our graduates are returning to prison only at the
rate of about 8 percent.
WEBB: I had the opportunity, several years ago, to go to Texas to report on
the Inner Change program that started outside of Houston. Why do you
suppose this group is bringing this lawsuit? Do you suppose it's because
the program is successful?
EARLEY: Well, I think there are two reasons, Lee. One is this group. Barry
Lynn and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a group
-- that's the sister group to the ACLU, and they're currently involved in a
lawsuit to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, so they are a group
that really wants to scrub God from any presence in the public square.
Secondly, when this suit was filed in February of 2003, it was six months
after Bush had been elected, and the press release that set forward when
they filed the lawsuit was really a broadside against President Bush and
his faith-based agenda…So, in a sense, I think we're targeted in this case
because we do have a high profile, it is a well-known successful program,
[and] it was started when Bush was governor of Texas. But I think their
real aim is a much broader target than us. It's the whole idea that
faith-based groups can participate with the government in solving problems,
and they don't want to see that.
[end excerpt]
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
