As if faith-based initiatives weren’t enough, now we’re funding religious teaching and proselytization. Marty Lederman at Balkinization asserts that this program is blatantly unconstitutional, and it seems pretty aparent that he’s right. Troubling that programs like this, which so clearly violate the first amendment, are still being brought up.
Thanks to Dad for the link.
It appears that Lederman may have confused two separate programs, one of which was approved during the Clinton administration. It’s been quite a while since I took John Sexton’s course on the religion clauses, but I would not be surprised if, upon reaching the Supreme Court, one or both programs were not found as “manifestly unconstitutional” as Lederman seems to think they are. If either or both are unconstitutional under current First Amendment precedent, that would likely be the product of the Court’s hopelessly contorted Establishment Clause caselaw rather than anything actually in the text of the Constitution.
Setting aside constitutional questions, haven’t liberals long favored taking a less punitive and more rehabilitative approach to incarceration? Why should programs like this be immediately branded as “troubling”? I’m asking sincerely here.
[As an aside, Jill, I give you props for finding the time to blog during finals. I am just about ready to rip my hair out from studying civ pro. If I never read about collateral estoppel again it will be too soon.]
There’s been a big bruhaha around here about allowing inmates at the main state prison observe ‘native american’ religion and the practices of its followers, which include sweatlodges to be setup at the prison grounds.
Now mind you, I’ve meant some of these people and some are a bit loopy, but whatever works. Fact is, the state has been fighting their ‘constitutional right’ to set up and have their religious observations.
That the federal government, would on the other hand, arbitrarially and without care, impose christianity upon inmates, funded by my tax dollars, defies the very principle of the constitution, does it not?
The problem lies in the state allowing funding for a SPECIFIC religion, while denying access to alternative faith options. Contrary to what Young Goodman Delay et al. might say, we are NOT a Christian nation. Yet. And any faith-based initiative that would tacitly operate under such an assumption is violating Constitutional law.
I’m not seeing any “imposition” here. It looks like the inmates participate in this program voluntarily. Lederman also writes that:
Hey, there are these people called atheists out there. Maybe you haven’t heard about them.
These are people who don’t believe in any religion at all.
It seems to me that any religious instruction is going to leave them out. Call me crazy, but I’m not a big fan of any rehab program that says that some prisoners don’t deserve to be rehabilitated.
And, the other question is, if the faith component can address any faith, from Christianity on down to Satanism and Atheism, if, in other words, it has no specific content, then why do we need it at all?
The big question, too, is: does this work better than anything else out there? Faith-based abstinence-only sex education has failed miserably. Why should we give the benefit of the doubt to faith-based prison rehab?
Moreover, while I don’t have a problem with providing prisoners who already profess a faith with access to programs and resources in line with that faith, I have to wonder whether these programs do much searching for clergy from religions outside the Big Three monotheistic faiths, particularly those, like Wicca, that seem to freak out the power structure.
Back to the effectiveness thing — how can a faith-based program that attempts to be all things to all people be effective from either a religious or a rehabilitation standpoint? You’re going to be watering down something.
And then there’s the issue of “volunteers.” I wonder just how voluntary some of the attendance will be. You might have a warden who’s a holy roller and strongly suggests that certain prisoners “volunteer” for the evangelical Christian version of the program. Hey, it’s voluntary.
Didn’t these kinds of programs already get busted as being not only ineffective, hut having a greater incidence of recidivism among participants than the regualar prison population?
Faith-based Fudging
Of course, I’m getting my information from the fine people who brought you F*&$ The South, F*%# South Dakota, etc.. But I think the article is legit.