Comments for: “Shutting InnerChange’s Doors: Iowa Corrections Officials Cut Ties To Prison Ministry Program”

Great news! Thank you, AU, for protecting the Constitution’s required separation of church and state.

Btw, the Des Moines Register article says: “Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship Ministries . . . considers the decision not directly related to the federal litigation. “This is really terminating pursuant to a contract that we have both agreed upon,” he said.”

Yeah, shutting them down had nothing to do with AU’s lawsuit. Sure thing! Hey, Mr. Earley, isn’t lying a sin?

AU can be proud of this victory for church/state separation. It’s a lesson to any state that might consider programs like InnerChange. Indoctrination in or conversion to a faith should not be the main goal of taxpayer-supported rehabilitation.

We all, religious or not, are indebted to those who fought this skirmish. Hopefully, with each passing year, our local governments will learn not to use taxpayer money to fund a religious project.

This is a huge win.

Mark Earley lies constantly. He’s the nutcase who pulled the plug on the state of Virginia’s investigation into Pat Robertson’s front group Operation Blessing.

Pilots who worked for Operation Blessing had complained they were being used to fly around equipment for Robertson’s African diamond mines, while Robertson had promised donors that their contributions would be used to fly medical personel into African villages.

The state of Virginia started investigations, but Earley, who was then a state official, and a buddy of Robertson’s, quashed the investigation.

Earley should be in prison himself.

FUAU

Joe sez: FUAU

Forward Unanimously Americans United?

Forever Understanding, Always Unbiased?

Forgiving Unforgivable Anonymous Uglies?

Joe, whatcha tryin’ ta say?

Forrest Prince, you should know that as a good christian Joe is not allowed to swear. He can hate, discriminate, purloin federal dollars, violate the law by politicking from the pulpit and generally stick his nose where it doesn’t belong but swear…NEVER!

Does any one else think it just a bit odd that even Chuck Colson’s Prison Ministry people can’t find the money to offer a residential post-incarceration program demo before they skate over the line into this ill-advised stuff? I realize that it would take some serious money and time to do the job right, even in Iowa, say more than $100 million and more than 10 years, but they talk to people like say, John Templeton, or Trinity Broadcasting, who have that kind of money in the taxes they are not paying. It would seen to be just the kind of thing that cutting edge private charity is supposed to be so good at: a bright shiny package somewhere between a Potempkin Village and Boys (and Girls)Town. With entirely voluntary participation, after a couple of years of start-up there would be a steady stream of good statistics to advertise. Instead, this was an ideological pipe dream; “You should spend your tax dollars on this project because I think it should work.”, with a hefty side dish of Persecuted Christians sauce. And, that may be the point. It is one thing to marshall resources and make a serious effort at resolving a problem, win, lose, or draw; it is quite another thing to make a comfortable living out of making a show out of complaining about how your belief system is being abused by those who do not claim to share it.

Don’t mind Joe. He’s just a sore loser, and can’t stand to see justice triumph over ignorance…like most of the Christian Taliban.

Data has shown that this type of rehabilitation is no more effective than current programs. Many would quickly sign up–without truly converting–just to get out of prison early. Recidivism rates for these types of programs are just as high as those who did not go through them. Not only is this a victory for church-state seperation, it is a victory for tax payers who have funded an ineffective program.

Shame on you! What positive alternative are you offering? None.
You do our society no good.
When you start bringing hope to the hopeless, re-entry jobs and mentors like InnerChange, then you will be taken seriously. Until then, you will be judged by your fruits (and the tree is bare).

Marty, the InnerChange tree bares no fruit.

I guess you haven’t read the research that proves otherwise. Do you know what the recidivism rate difference is between an InnerChange graduate and the general prison population?

Titania,
You actually prove my point.
You criticize InnerChange without putting any effort toward a positive alternative. That’s what AU does best.

Please share, Marty. While you’re at it, how about all the other “proof of efficacy” from all the other taxpayer funded Faith Based Initiatives programs.

How about the Christians offer their programs on church-raised funds, and do it without coercion for conversion (or promises of special treatment),and offer it equally to all, without disparaging other faiths.

Social welfare programs do not require a statement of faith prior to helping.

Prison Fellowship launched the InnerChange Freedom Initiative ten years ago in Texas to try to deal with the problem of recidivism. The concept was based loosely on a program in Brazil in which the authorities pretty much turned the keys of a prison over to the local Catholic parish and said, “We can’t do anything with this place; see if you can.” The prison became a model of transformation.

Twelve years ago, folks from the Texas Department of Corrections and leaders at Prison Fellowship visited the Brazilian program. What developed was The InnerChange Freedom Initiative: a pre-release program that works with inmates for two years prior to their release and one year after their release. Two hundred men live together in a faith-based, holistic program. It’s not only based on spiritual transformation. It also includes academic training, vocational training, life skills training, substance abuse treatment, and post-prison assistance with employment and getting rooted into a local church. Every prisoner is assigned a mentor who will work with them both in prison and when they leave the prison. The program is now in six states—Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Missouri.

The program in Texas was studied by the University of Pennsylvania, which confirmed a study by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The studies showed that those who graduated from the program had a 17 percent re-arrest rate and an 8 percent re-incarceration rate after two years. That’s a pretty dramatic decrease in recidivism.

However, if people come into the program and drop out, their recidivism rates aren’t any better than in the general prison population. Some have criticized the way this research has been reported (see Slate), but think about it. If you have 1000 alcoholics voluntarily sign up for a treatment program that promises to help those who complete the program, and 87% (870)of those who complete it suffer no re-lapse within 2 years, wouldn’t you call that a success? Would you fault the program for the ones who dropped out? The clinical dependency field would call the program a stunning success. Why can’t we cheer on the programs that help our society, or create an alternative more to your own liking?
What fruit comes from obstructionism?
Remember the Iowa program was being 100% funded through private donations when it was cancelled.

For proof of efficacy for the Iowa program
that has not been disputed by any scholars go to:

http://www.aca.org/research/pdf/ResearchNot
es_Dec07.pdf

InnerChange’s efficay was disproved on this very website serveral months ago. InnerChange’s data was shown to be greatly skewed and to be no better than what is currently being done in the prison system. Your link does not clearly indicate the source of this data in support of InnerChange. By the way, put your money where your mouth is and stop pointing your finger at me. Further, AUs purpose isn’t criminal rehabilitation, it’s the seperation of church and state–the whole reason why InnerChange should not be funded by tax payer dollars.

Funny, when I click on the link, I get “Page Not Found.”

Marty,

You make some persuasive points but
whether the program works (or not) is really beside the point. This program only rewards those who “voluntarily participate” (in a prison no-less) with benefits not accorded to other inmates like better living conditions and priority access to education classes required for parole. Seems like that’s government-sponsored religious coercion of the worst kind.

Why should those advantages be reserved only for those who choose a specific religious program of rehabilitation?

Old news, but:
Faith-Based Fudging:How a Bush-promoted Christian prison program fakes success by massaging data.
By Mark A.R. Kleiman
http://www.slate.com/id/2086617/

Marty, I say “shame on you” for ignoring the fact that this program was unlawful and that taxpayers’ dollars were being used unconstitutionally for the betterment only of select prisoners. The program was not only unlawful, but also discriminatory and in some cases possibly harmful. No other prisoners received the special entitlements that InnerChange participants received. One Catholic prisoner was told that his faith was the “whore of Babylon”. The bias and possible hatred that InnerChange staff members displayed toward other faiths was cruel and impacted negatively on some prisoners. Their behavior was reprehensible and irresponsible, and doesn’t give one the impression that it was in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.

“Remember the Iowa program was being 100% funded through private donations when it was cancelled.”

Yes, this is true. It was being funded through private donations because a court of law had determined that the program could no longer be funded by the state. Now, it seems that InnerChange is no longer capable of or willing to provide their program to Iowa prisoners without government funding. That gives me cause to doubt the sincerity of their dedication to true rehabilitation versus the motive to attempt to convert prisoners using taxpayer money.

Another link:
Faith-based prison programs claim to reduce recidivism, but there’s little evidence, says FSU research

by Libby Fairhurst
http://www.fsu.edu/news/2006/1......programs/

Titania says:

InnerChange’s efficay(sic)was disproved on this very website serveral months ago. InnerChange’s data was shown to be greatly skewed and to be no better than what is currently being done in the prison system. Your link does not clearly indicate the source of this data in support of InnerChange.

Marty’s reply: In case you didn’t know…in the link I provided http://www.aca.org/research/pd....._Dec07.pdf
in Figure 1, IFI stands for InnerChange Freedom Initiative (the chart shows IFI rated 2nd highest out of 17 programs for recidivism reduction in the Iowa Correctional System).
The source was an article printed in Corrections Today, published by the American Correctional Association 206 N. Washington Street - Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: (703) 224-0000 - Fax: (703) 224-0179

Titania says:
By the way, put your money where your mouth is and stop pointing your finger at me.

Marty says:
This isn’t about you. It’s a critique of AU. Also, Albatross asked me to show proof of efficacy. I did and it hasn’t been disproved. I also rebutted the previous AU critique of the Univ. of Pennsylvania study and no one has countered my rebuttal.

Titania says:
Further, AUs purpose isn’t criminal rehabilitation, it’s the seperation of church and state–the whole reason why InnerChange should not be funded by tax payer dollars.

Marty says:
My point exactly. Criminal rehabilitation would be a worthy pursuit. But instead AU’s purpose is to waste time, energy, and your $’s criticizing and obstructing concrete efforts to help people (that in Iowa’s InnerChange case are now being 100% privately funded).
Why not spend all that energy actually helping people? That’s what I do for a living and so I will sign off and go to work to do exactly that.

In a nutshell, Marty, there is NO evidence that your faith-based special treatment taxpayer funded programs even work, so as an alternative, I’d recommend keeping religion out of it. I don’t choose to fund extremist fundamentalism, and just because we have a president paying back his debt for votes with our money doesn’t mean any of it is actually legal.

Thank you, AU.

Marty,

Before you sign off, why don’t you answer my earlier question about the coersive nature of this program?

If your goal is to rehabilitate everyone without religious coersion, why should special advantages be reserved only for those who choose a specific religious program of rehabilitation?

Please explain.

Jimmy,
If the AU web piece quoted below is your source your assertions are flimsy indeed.
I visit people in Iowa prisons and I can testify that their is no such thing as “special treatment.” Are there differences from prison to prison yes, but there is no quicker access to classes needed for parole. In fact, many volunteers for the IFI program waited in line up to 15 months just to get into the program. Not to mention the variety of other treatment programs that were available.
The charge of coersion is a red herring.

When AU asserts that “InnerChange personnel and material too often singled out other religions for degrading treatment” it is just that, an assertion based on their bias.

Importantly, the Eighth Circuit panel slapped down Judge Pratt and defended religious liberty and free association. Eight Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Duane Benton’s opinion for the panel (which included Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) held that Judge Pratt abused his discretion by accepting the testimony of a law professor/Ph.D./author about the beliefs of Evangelical Christians. Quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Helms (2002), Judge Benton wrote that “[a]n inquiry into an organization’s religious views to determine if it is pervasively sectarian ‘is not only unnecessary but also offensive. It is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling through a person’s or institution’s religious beliefs.’”

+++++++++++++++++++++++
From the AU piece:
“During the course of the litigation, Americans United revealed that inmates who participated in InnerChange received benefits not afforded to other inmates. For instance, InnerChange inmates were given better housing, quicker access to classes needed for parole and greater contact with family members.
Moreover, InnerChange personnel and material too often singled out other religions for degrading treatment.

Marty,

Thanks for your cogent response. Maybe Jeremy would like to substatiate his claim?

Jeremy,

Your AU article claims:
“During the course of the litigation, Americans United revealed that inmates who participated in InnerChange received benefits not afforded to other inmates. For instance, InnerChange inmates were given better housing, quicker access to classes needed for parole and greater contact with family members.”

What facts do you have to substantiate this claim? Marty doesn’t believe you.

Marty, if you decide to come back, let me know. I will find time to provide you with links to news sites. These sites have direct quotes from prisoners who participated in the program. Most AU articles provide links of this type. You may want to check the original post about this situation for confirming sources.

Allow me to add a completely faith-based comment to this thread. One of the founding beliefs of groups like Colson’s Prison Fellowship is that the only source of true rehabilitation and change is saving faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, they view it as incomplete/a waste of time to try and truly rehabilitate someone who has not given their life to Jesus.

Because the program was voluntary and was being funded by private sources (at the end), I am sad to see it go. Well, maybe the government can have better luck with Obama. I’m sure if we’d just all follow Obama then everything would work out okay. Wait, isn’t that religious?

Marty, if this isn’t about me, then stop directing your comments at me. Neither I, nor AU are under any legal requirement, moral code, or devine edict to address the issue of prison rehabilitation. However, you seem to be very passionate about it, so why don’t you come up with a solution? You are on the wrong forum if prison rehabilitation is your issue. The issue here is the greatly needed defense of seperation of church and state. Without it, those prisonsers you so passionately want rehabilitated would be stoned to death under Old Testament law.

BTW, haveing any organization affiliated with InnerChange analyze their efficacy is like having Enron audit its own books.

FYI, here are some links relative to this issue:

An AU article about the July 6 court victory: http://www.au.org/site/News2?a.....ewsArticle

From the article:
‘According to the court record, non-evangelical Christians were commonly referred to by InnerChange staff as “unsaved,” “lost,” “pagan,” those “who served the flesh,” “of Satan,” “sinful” and “of darkness.”’

‘Testimony revealed a constant tension between Roman Catholic inmates involved in InnerChange and the chronic problem of InnerChange volunteers criticizing Roman Catholic beliefs and practices…. InnerChange’s Field Guide clearly warns that non-Christians and those who desire time to observe faith practices not included in the Inner¬Change program, e.g., Roman Catholics who wish to attend Mass or Native Americans who wish to participate in the sweat lodge ceremony, may do so only if those observances do not conflict with the Inner¬Change program requirements.”’

Contrary to Marty’s claim, these are not “assertions” made by AU.

This is the link to AU’s coverage of the appeal:
http://blog.au.org/2007/12/19/.....b-program/

This blog has links to the friend-of-the-court brief filed by varied clergy and to the court’s ruling in favor of AU.

Shadrach, Colson and his Fellowship are free to believe whatever they want about rehabilitation. They are not free, however, to administer a program with that basis on the public dime. If it’s such a great program, why is it walking away and abandoning all of those prisoners allegedly in need of its help?

What an absurdly sophomoric comment about “following” Obama. It warrants no further comment.

Marty wrote: “What positive alternative are you offering?”

We’re offering a world where the First Amendment to the Constitution is NOT violated. I like it. In fact, I plan to send AU more money to thank them for protecting the Constitution’s required separation of church and state.

Btw, Albatross provided two links that demonstrated how Marty’s claims are ridiculous. Notice that Marty completely ignored those links. How very telling.

Jeremy or anyone else from AU,

I agree that this program violated the 1st amendment in many obvious ways but I’m particularly interested in one aspect of the apparently coersive nature of this program.

How do you substantiate your claim that “inmates who participated in InnerChange received benefits not afforded to other inmates”?

Was this claim based on testemony at the trial? If so, did Judge Pratt accept this testemony as truthful? Exactly how did you confirm that InnerChange participants received special benefits not afforded to other inmates?

Shadrach, I will second Jax’s comment re: your remark on Obama. How absurd! Perhaps, in your little world, you’d like to come before us and tell us all for whom we should vote, based of course on your ideals of who will save us in your, I mean, in Christ’s eyes. Things sure worked out dandy with those who saw Bush as God’s anointed. Too bad there are term limits, huh, or else all your faith based unconstitutional programming would be set for life - theocracy! Yay!

Alba, I’ll third, motion carried.

I’m glad to draw your comments. That is exactly why I wrote that line. I thought it would be humerous. I like the idea of wise-foolishness.

In all reality, I have not seen that this blog advocates one candidate since thus far none of the options would do what you desire. They are all still playing to the religious majority of American citizens.

Despite that, however you choose to vote, do you not vote based on who most closely aligns with your own values? Do you really think that in our current democracy, your voice will carry weight with the supreme office of our government? I would thus propose that for whomever you vote, you are deciding to follow hoping that they will actually lead.

Shadrach, I do believe I recall you saying that you were from Niger. Why, then, do you refer to “our current democracy, the supreme office of “our” government,” as if you were, in fact, a US citizen, as if it were your government?

This nation was founded as a Republic, and while the definition may closely align with that of a democracy, and the term democracy may be thrown around this country very loosely, we are in fact a republic.

Second, I certainly do vote with the hope that our elected officials will lead, and lead successfully. Right now, my vote will be in the hopes of restoring some of the principles and rights that were stripped away courtesy of the present administration, whose leadership, I think, was a mockery and an absolute failure. This doesn’t make me a “follower” of any particular candidate’s religious persuasion. I really couldn’t care if they worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor do I wish for them to care about whom I worship - this is, after all, one of the guarantees of the establishment of this country, no?

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Thomas Jefferson

I do live in Niger doing development work, but I was born in and am a citizen of the USA.

If you will reread my comment, you will find that I said nothing about following your candidates religious beliefs, rather simply following your candidate and thus subjecting yourself to whatever their beliefs are due to the fact that after they are elected, you will have very little say in what they actually do.

And yes, it is a Republic and the word democracy is used very loosely, but no one really talks about this country as a republic so I chose to use the normative language.

“…following your candidate and thus subjecting yourself to whatever their beliefs are due to the fact that after they are elected, you will have very little say in what they actually do…”

Shadrach, you seem to imply that the president has absolute power to impose his/her beliefs upon the American public, which I’m sure you know isn’t true. While the Religious Right may have this goal in mind, and the current administration may behave as if believes the opposite, it still remains true. Hopefully, the dismal failures of the current administration and its attempt to suppress American liberties will serve as a lesson to future administrations. I believe they have already served as a lesson to much of the American public.

Jax, you are correct in much of what you just said. One of the things I would like to know is a candidates stance on the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. If we could get an honest reponse to that question, it would tell us almost as much about what a candidate will do in office as his/her religious beliefs.

It is true that we have our system of checks and balances to prevent the president from unilaterally doing whatever he/she wishes, but you must see the failures in that. How does the Iraq war continue to get appropriations?

Thus, we are destined to follow, to the extent our system allows, the beliefs, as they are played out in policy, of our president. I think we will find that extent to be very vast indeed.

“How does the Iraq war continue to get appropriations?”

Iraq is an example of how our government has failed, a failure due largely to an administration that has lied, bullied, threatened and acted against those who opposed it or attempted to reveal the truth. (Valerie Plame’s name was not revealed by accident.)

That is why we need an administration that is committed to honoring the constitution and the law, rather than to abusing the system to obtain its goals. That is why we need to put an immediate end to the type of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality that this administration has displayed, not only toward the rest of the world, but toward its own citizens.

“Thus, we are destined to follow, to the extent our system allows, the beliefs, as they are played out in policy, of our president. I think we will find that extent to be very vast indeed.”

I agree that our government is not perfect. Ben Franklin, referring to the Constitution, said that we may never have a perfect government, but that this is the best we may ever do. However, your statement emphasizes the need for a president who demonstrates respect for the Constitution and for all of America’s citizens.

“your statement emphasizes the need for a president who demonstrates respect for the Constitution and for all of America’s citizens.”

Although I think we have very different interpretations of that statement, we are agreed.

I’m out.

This is where AU and like-minded secularists are taking our nation. I dare you to read the following.

On the Cusp of a Crisis
Quebec’s Quiet Revolution
March 10, 2008

I recently heard a story that is both fascinating—and disturbing. The story was told by Tessa Littlejohn. She is a flight attendant who lives in Ontario. Tessa recently worked with another flight attendant from Quebec, whom I will call Cecile. As they worked, Cecile told Tessa all about her boyfriend, Gerard. Cecile was wearing a ring on her left hand, so Tessa asked her if she was engaged. Cecile blushed. “Actually,” she said, “Gerard and I have been married for two years.”

Then why on earth was she calling Gerard her “boyfriend”? Because, Cecile explained, no one in Quebec gets married anymore. If she referred to Gerard as her husband, Cecile said, “I would sound like an old lady. It would feel too weird.”

Tessa was not too surprised at Cecile’s reasoning, but it did make her think about what happens when a society abandons God and His laws.

For Quebec, this abandonment began during what became known as the Quiet Revolution. As Richard Neuhaus writes in the March issue of First Things, up until 1960, when Quebec’s Liberal Party took power, there was an almost total synthesis of Church, culture, and state; the Catholic Church provided nearly all educational and social services.

As American scholar Charles Doran notes, it was Catholic clergy who helped people survive the hardships of a new and rough land, and “provided the social cement for the colony.” But in the 1960s, Canadians abandoned their Judeo-Christian values in favor of modernity. And as Doran notes, the Catholic clergy “became an embarrassing reminder of a past that everyone wanted to forget.” Tragically, the Church willingly cooperated in its own retreat.

The predictable result of this revolution was that the role of the state became greatly enlarged, because the state alone was capable of implementing desired social changes. Today, nearly five decades later, the churches largely stand empty—and the consequences of modernity are on stark display.

Of all the Canadian provinces, Quebec has the lowest marriage rate. It also has the lowest birth rate—the province is literally dying out. Quebec’s abortion rate is higher than all other Canadian provinces, with 30 percent of all pregnancies ending in abortion! Quebec leads the other provinces in divorce and suicide rates as well. And its chief city, Montreal, has become a notorious haven for pedophiles, according to Canada’s leading news magazine.

As Tessa notes, “Society is collapsing; they are on the cusp of a crisis that is only mitigated by the fact that they are part of a larger country, which is not at the same point of moral failure. If you want to know what happens to society when it rejects God,” Tessa concludes, “look at Quebec.”

What is happening to French Canadians is tragic—and it should serve as a warning to those of us living south of the border. Religious faith and practice cannot be cut adrift from a healthy society—not if the society, that is, wants to stay healthy.

Americans have already traveled perilously far down this same road, and suffer many of the social traumas Quebecers do. The question is: Are we going to continue down this same, destructive road—or change course? Will we learn from the disastrous lab experiment conducted to the north—or copy it?