Comments for: “Prison Prejudice: Clearing Up Confusion About Prison Fellowship’s Rehab Program”

‘Inmate Michael Bauer testified that IFI counselors told participants that the “Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon.” Non-fundamentalist Christians were regularly referred to as “unsaved,” “lost,” “of Satan,” “pagan” and “sinful.”’

There’s the RR, showing its true colors again. They claim to offer a program in a “loving community” (as indicated in the court’s ruling) - one that apparently encourages hatred of other faiths.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Mr. Fannon turned out to be a member of the RR himself, rather than the RC he claims to be. The RR can point to his letter and say “see, even those lost sinners who affiliate with the Whore of Bablyon support our efforts.”

Keep up the good work, you RR folks. Your credibility and integrity are crumbling before the country’s eyes. But, then, that’s what happens to most hypocrits in the long run.

Michael Fannon … recently wrote “… I would be happy with whatever Christian teachings they can receive.”

So, if prisoners are non-Christians, they will receive no special treatment, which is the intent of the program from the get-go. And so the program is by definition oriented towards Christian prosyletization. QED.

From the article: “Chaplaincy programs have long been apart of the penal system to serve prisoners’ spiritual needs, and it’s important that they stay.”

I can’t tell whether “apart” [separate] rather than “a part” [included] is a typo or a subjunctive hint that religious services were intended to be banned from prisons, in spite of the rest of the statement.

But I don’t think it matters. Prison SHOULD be a denial of liberties. And it’s not so nearly enough, with feeding the incarcerated rounded meals, instead of just beans and bread, and then having workout facilities to help them stay strong and agile, more able to pull off the jobs they intend after they get out. So give them what they want in the way of religion, too? Why? If they don’t have freedom to go out on the streets and join a picket line [free speech], or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures [must submit to a search of quarters or person by guards whenever asked], and certainly not the freedom to keep and bear arms… why is freedom of religion different?

One can argue that certain denial of liberty takes place in prison, but that doesn’t take the edge off the *Establishment* Clause.

While one can mount an argument for denying prisoner religious freedom, that DOES NOT translate into a license for the government (in this case, the penal system) to get into the religion business.

Personally, I don’t see what could be gained by denying prisoner religious freedom, though. What would it accomplish?

What does denying ANY kind of freedom to prisoners accomplish? Almost nothing. But still, if they want their freedoms, then they should overcome the urges to do the acts which land them there.

Even if religious inculcation was an unquestionably effective method of criminal rehabilitation, it could still not be used. The government would not have the authority under the Constitution to get involved in offering religious indoctrination.

Clearly, our penal system doesn’t do much in the way of rehabilitation. Adding on an unconstitutional and ineffective program is not likely to help.

I think coerced religious inculcation would be prohibited as both cruel and unusual punishment!

“One can argue that certain denial of liberty takes place in prison, but that doesn’t take the edge off the *Establishment* Clause.”

Absolutely. Incarceration does not make the Establishment Clause null and void. Having to pay a “debt to society” does not make a person eligible for inhumane treatment.

“”I think coerced religious inculcation would be prohibited as both cruel and unusual punishment!”"

LOL If you were in a Muslim country and smuggled some booze in and they caught you, of all the things they might do to you– lashing, mutilation, starvation, et al– the CRUEL part would be that they read the Quran to you?

J, lashing, mutilation, starvation and forced inculcation are all cruel. Just because one is less immediately physically injurious doesn’t make it not cruel. See, that wasn’t so hard.

“”J, lashing, mutilation, starvation and forced inculcation are all cruel.”"

So seeing bumper stickers about God by having to watch the car in front of you, is a form of cruelty level with mutilation, lashing, and starvation?

J, you’re really stretching your arguments way the hell out there, don’t you think? There is no actual legitimacy to these random blurbs; it isn’t really about debate for you, so might I ask - why are you here?

RE: The CRUEL part would be that they read the Quran to you?

J, have you ever read the Quran? - in my opinion - yes! Cruel!

“”have you ever read the Quran? - in my opinion - yes! Cruel!”"

It’s been years since I read it, and I’ve had no inclination to reread it. But you ARE saying that being read the Quran is a cruelty equivalent to mutilation, lashing, or starvation?

J says: “LOL If you were in a Muslim country and smuggled some booze in and they caught you, of all the things they might do to you– lashing, mutilation, starvation, et al– the CRUEL part would be that they read the Quran to you?”

You said it, J. You. The commentary was forced inculcation, and unconstitutional prison fellowship programs. You brought up the Koran, and then you started babbling about ‘God’ bumper stickers.

RE: But you ARE saying that being read the Quran is a cruelty…

YES! They would have to TIE ME DOWN and use LOUDSPEAKERS!!! Pain! Pain!

I’ve tried the Quran and several other like-inspired texts - from ancient right up to the 19th century or so - and I’ve NEVER been able to finish a single one!

J, if you read the whole thing, not even to mention the Hebrew Bible, you are a STRONGER MAN than I am. Let alone David and Yahweh, who can proof-text with the best of them!

I was standing in line behind a Salvation Army prison minister at a convention in August. She went on with an incredible diatribe about Islam. She then segued into ditto about Planned Parenthood who “think children are garbage,” according to her. I wondered how she could minister to those from mainline denominations?

Ex-con/Rep. Pat Nolan has stepped into Charles Colson’s smelly shoes as a “faith leader” in pushing the dangerous and costly for-profit prison system. Each loves the other because the fundies get to evangelize prisoners and the for-profits get to have a “program” that they don’t have to pay for.

The writer is correct about there being no evidence that religious indoctrination reduces recidivism. The “study” done that supposedly did so was crap and in fact showed that there were higher rates for recidivism for program entrants than for control who were excluded from participation.

It’s only a little (to quote the Moonies) “heavenly deception” that allows the fundies to continue to parrot this mendacity.