Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: [Iowa] Prison program unconstitutional
AP ^ | 4 Dec. 2007 | DAVID PITT

Posted on 12/03/2007 11:42:57 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo

DES MOINES, Iowa - A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the state of Iowa cannot fund an evangelical Christian prison ministry program because doing so advances or endorses religion, violating the Constitutional separation of church and state.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt's June 2006 ruling that a Prison Fellowship Ministries Inc. program at the Newton Correctional Facility was unconstitutional if paid for with taxpayer dollars and should be shut down.

Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington-based advocacy group Americans United For Separation of Church and State, which brought the lawsuit, said the ruling would have major implications for the Bush administration's policies of allowing faith-based groups to offer services to government institutions.

"This is an enormously significant case on the whole question of how government can, or in this case, cannot aid religious ministries," Lynn said.

"I think this has implications far broader than a prison in a single state because the basic framework of this decision, the way they reached the conclusion is that government can't pay for these religious social services nor can they turn over functions of government essentially to religious operations," he said.

Prison Fellowship Ministries, which contracts with InnerChange Freedom Initiatives Inc. and other organizations to conduct faith-based programs, must repay about $160,000 to the state for money received between June 2006 and June 2007, said Mark Early, the group's president.

He said the ruling would clarify how faith-based programs could work with government agencies.

"We're pleased because in this opinion there are some clarifying guidelines to help us and other faith-based organizations working in government settings, such as prisons, to be able to fashion a program and make sure they do comply with current understanding of constitutional law in this area."

Prison Fellowship operates nine programs in six states: Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri and Texas. All are now privately funded through donations from individuals and foundations, he said.

The 24-hour a day, seven-day a week program at Newton immerses inmates in evangelical Christianity. Inmates who complete the 18-month program also get help after they're released from prison.

Fred Scaletta, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Corrections, said corrections officials were reviewing the ruling with the attorney general's office to determine how the state would proceed with the operation of the program.

Bob Brammer, a spokesman for the Iowa attorney general's office, said attorneys were reviewing the ruling and considering whether to appeal.

An appeal could include asking the three-member 8th Circuit panel for clarification on issues or could seek consideration by the full 8th Circuit Court. The ruling also could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: christianity; iowa; prison
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Raymann
There is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the Constitution.

the Constitution does not give the fed the authority to fund such a program.

On this we can agree!
It also does not give the federal government the authority to:

-give billions of American tax-payer dollars to Africa to allegedly fight AIDS.
-steal money from the American people to bail out invaders and idiots who made bad mortgage loans.
-force tax-payer funded commie health care on everyone IN the country.
-dictate what I may or may not eat.
-fund alledged "research" projects, aka grants, that will lead to the downfall of our country.
-confiscate private property.
-institute a progressive income tax.
-institute a socialist/communist retirement system, forcing others to fund someone else's retirement.
-fund "public" radio and tv. Let those that watch, pay.
-interfere with private industry by dictating wages and benefits.
-establish and finance government forced re-education camps, aka public schools.
-make across the board laws, based on phoney research, for my own good.
-deny free speech, which includes prayer, where ever I decide to do so.
-deny my right to keep and bear arms.

Out of time...must go. Feel free to add to the list.

21 posted on 12/04/2007 8:15:58 AM PST by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan
I believe Barry’s long term outlook is rather dim.

In Barry’s case it’s four score and ten and then there is nothing to look forward to in the future.

I am like the old Sgt that says when your in a fox hole and bullets are flying over head you have a sudden urge to get Ole Time Religion.

22 posted on 12/04/2007 8:28:55 AM PST by OKIEDOC (Kalifornia, a red state wannabe. I don't take Ex Lax I just read the New York Times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
You are correct.....

27) Infiltrate the churches.....

Unless I'm mistaken, it looks to me like we've allowed pretty much everything on that list to become reality.

23 posted on 12/04/2007 10:26:59 AM PST by pigsmith (Viewing life as a gift from God, I tend to regard self-defense more as an obligation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tyke
That's money received from the government used directly to evangelize inmates. How can this be anything other than a clear conflict?

Actually, there are two, big fat reasons that it's not a conflict. One is just basic logic, and the other is original intent.

First, let's look at the basic logic:

1. The money that Prison Fellowship will repay is money received for providing a service. The state arranged for this group to provide a number of services to the state, many of which would occur in a purely state-run prison, and reimbursed them for it. Treating this as if the state of Iowa made a donation to Jimmy Swaggart is not accurate.

2. Prisoners enter this program voluntarily. To say this program has a conflict is like saying that an afterschool Bible club has a conflict. In both cases, state money is being used to support willing participants in a religious practice. Should the kids in the Bible Club have to pay the school district rent, while the Spanish Club, Chess Club and Freethinkers Club get off scot free, or can they all use the facility?

In fact, check this out: If a voluntary program like this is off limits, then any religious service or ministry visit to a prison would also be off limits. No prison chaplain, no prison chapel, no Angel Tree program, etc. If the prison holds a service and a prisoner is saved, tax dollars supported it by paying for facilities, security and (possibly) the salary of the preacher who conducted the service. Ready to pull the chapels out of prisons? How about AA and Narcotis Anonymous programs, which require the member to accept the guidance of a higher power?

3. Iowa has decided that they want their prisons to rehabilitate. The InnerChange program is astoundingly successful at rehabilitating compared to other programs. The court is saying that the state must choose to run their prison in a way that guarantees fewer prisoners will become productive, law abiding members of society, and presumably this ruling would apply even if they had a program for members of every single religion. In fact, it would not be a stretch to see a court saying that a program designed by a psychologist that has a 50% recidivism rate is acceptable, but a program jointly designed by a Buddhist, a Southern Baptist and a Hindu with an 8% recidivism rate is not, because they expect the attendees to acknowledge a spiritual dimension, or because it requires addicted prisoners to go through a 12 step program. The court is telling the state "the Constitution says you must screw up." I don't think that's in there.

Now let's take a look at original intent. I'll even restrict my discussion to one Founder.

When Thomas "Wall of separation between church and state" Jefferson was President, he attended church in the U.S. Capitol. Note that one of the times he attended was just two days after he penned the "wall of separation" letter to the Danbury Baptists. He had authorized the use of the Capitol for this purpose in a joint decision with the Speaker of the House in 1800. He had the Marine Band play at services there. He authorized church services held in the Treasury building and War Department. He entered into a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe that required the United States to fund a Catholic priest to minister to them. The Senate ratified it without any controversy that I'm aware of.

Oh, and BTW, church services continued at the Capitol until wll after the Civil War, even though there were 22 churches in Washington by 1837.

If Thomas Jefferson, arguably the least Christian of the Founders and the man who gave us the phrase "separation of church and state" thought it was OK to preach sermons in federal buildings and pay a priest's salary from the treasury, why should we believe that it's not OK to have some prisoners voluntarily enter a religious-themed anti-recidivism program?

24 posted on 12/04/2007 12:07:02 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tyke

Oh, and I’m sorry to add more to an already long post, but read the First Amendment: Congress is forbidden from establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise. Iowa is neither setting up a state church or prohibiting anyone from exercising their faith, so this is not even a 1st Amendment case, much less a violation.


25 posted on 12/04/2007 12:12:24 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
But this program is unconstitutional not just on church/state grounds but also because the Constitution does not give the fed the authority to fund such a program.

First, this program was state funded. Second, let's follow that logic to its finish: How much of the current federal budget should be eliminated as unconstitutional?

As for constitutionality, Thomas Jefferson disagrees. See post 24.

26 posted on 12/04/2007 12:24:13 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

bump for later bookmarking


27 posted on 12/04/2007 12:25:10 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

I’m sure it’s all right to pay for ministers of the cult of death to go in and teach the inmates how to hate Christians and Jews.


28 posted on 12/04/2007 12:29:04 PM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Ok I'll take it.

1. The money that Prison Fellowship will repay is money received for providing a service.
There are no other non-religious groups in the prison that can form up and do the same. An atheist in prison, for instance, can’t form is own group in prison then ask for state funds in return for services so that they can finance it. The state here is favoring one group over others.
2. Prisoners enter this program voluntarily.
I have no problem with the simple use of facilities, just so far as other well-behaved prisoners are afforded equal opportunity.
3. Iowa has decided that they want their prisons to rehabilitate.
And who wouldn’t. I’ll even accept that not only is the program successful, it saves the people of the state of Iowa money by turning repeat felons into better citizens. Here’s the crux though, state constitutions can (and should) provide stronger protections then the US Constitution but they cannot be weaker. Having a fair and just justice system is necessary for the protection of individual rights but neither the US or Iowa Constitution give the state the authority to give taxpayer money to a private organization. The fact that it’s religious would be my second argument but it’s still private. Now if paying for programs like this were voluntary…
Finally on Jefferson…all I have to say is read the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. He makes it absolutely clear there what his views on the public support of religion are.
29 posted on 12/04/2007 2:10:02 PM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

Sorry, fed was a misprint. (I’m so used to jumping on them)

As for the state funded part, read my next post. Second on following through with my logic...I have and I believe that roughly 65% of the federal budget can be eliminated as being unconstitutional.


30 posted on 12/04/2007 2:12:52 PM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
I just got this emailed from Fred - it appears that the whole story is nto being told. Also, go to Prison Fellowship's site as they are saying the same thing as Fred.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Karen Hanretty December 4, 2007 571-730-1010 Statement by Fred Thompson on First Amendment Ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit McLean, VA - Sen. Fred Thompson released the following statement today in response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit - Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship - regarding an important First Amendment ruling on religious programming in prisons. "The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion appears to allow Prison Fellowship's privately funded, voluntary prisoner rehabilitation programs in Iowa's prisons to continue. Prison inmates face daunting odds: statistically, two-thirds of them will be rearrested within three years of their release. As a society, we must do something to reduce this number and help returning inmates break the cycle of crime. Prison Fellowship's program has already demonstrated great promise. This ruling will allow faith-based prison programming to continue in order to improve the odds of successful reentry into society. This decision represents a win for the State of Iowa, for Prison Fellowship, and for anyone concerned about reducing recidivism."

31 posted on 12/04/2007 2:13:31 PM PST by jettester (I got paid to break 'em - not fly 'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
There are no other non-religious groups in the prison that can form up and do the same. An atheist in prison, for instance, can’t form is own group in prison then ask for state funds in return for services so that they can finance it. The state here is favoring one group over others.

When did they offer? Unless a group of atheists (or Hindus, etc.) showed up and offered to do the same stuff for Iowa and was turned away, there is no claim of discrimination.

I have no problem with the simple use of facilities, just so far as other well-behaved prisoners are afforded equal opportunity.

Why should prisoners willing to turn their lives around be unable to have access because the atheists and Hindus didn't show up? And doesn't that put an undue burden on the state anyway? What if the state has partnered with 15 different denominations and religions, including atheists, and some guy decides he wants an InnerChange equivalent using Raelian philosophy, of which he will be the only member in the entire state? Should the state have to provide that, or dismantle the other 15 programs?

but neither the US or Iowa Constitution give the state the authority to give taxpayer money to a private organization.

So...if the prison has a laundry service the checks written to it are unconstitutional?

Now if paying for programs like this were voluntary…

I feel that the public schools are teaching a lot of crap I disagree with, like multiculturalism and PC bullmurtha. Should I get to stop paying the portion of taxes on my house that goes to the school district?

He makes it absolutely clear there what his views on the public support of religion are.

Oh...and he paid Catholic missionaries out of the treasury and offered government builidngs for schurch services because...?

32 posted on 12/04/2007 9:08:34 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Support Scouting: Raising boys to be strong men and politically incorrect at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson