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.
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...?