Christian Prison

[Sir Rhetor]

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... rison.html
http://www.drudge.com/news/127323/oklah ... ian-prison

So apparently Christians saved up enough money to build their very own prison. This prison will hire only Christians, which is certainly against the law. Another important piece of information is that it is not a maximum security prison, and it will only be for prisoners at the end of their sentence.

The prison is obviously set up to be primed for proselytizers, who will share the Bible with the criminals.

Is this a good idea, or is it discriminatory, disastrous, and ironic?

[East of Eden]

OK, I see the disconnect. You believe that only a specific denomination can be established.

Yes.

I believe that you will find that the courts have ruled that it would be unconstitutional to establish the Christian religion in general as much as it would be to establish Missouri Synod Lutherans.

This prison program doesn't establish Christianity, any more than it did when vets used the GI Bill to go to seminary.

I don't see the founders as apostles or the constitution as holy writ. Nor did they. That is why they built in a process for revision and judicial interpretation. Any country's constitution is an evolving doctrine.

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution. What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship. Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

I will side with the learned Judge rather than with your amateur opinion on this matter, unless you have evidence that this decision is a bad one.

You mean the learned Judge Story I posted earlier?

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 25:

This prison program doesn't establish Christianity, any more than it did when vets used the GI Bill to go to seminary.

LOL

A Christian prison.

The GI Bill is a contract to offer money for education upon service. It is the soldier's money, not the government's.

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution.

Not at all. It merely reflects that things change.

What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship.

A somewhat accurate assessment, if one considers that ultimately someone has to determine what is constitutional or not.

Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

The Constitution is designed to thwart purely mob rule, but I agree in principle. However, we don't have to successfully change the Constitution to show that something is unconstitutional.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

We should be compelled to revise any thought or proclamation we deem wrong. This includes the Constitution.

I see a lot of this "it used to be" sort of reasoning in church/state issues. I propose we make our decisions based on what is right, and not so much on how folks acted hundreds or thousands of years ago. If we deem a state once violated the Constitution, then we should say so, and not use it as a defense to continue an unconstitutional practice.

[Abraxas]

It doesn't (yet) for this one specifically, however other prisons do have release programs for 'good Christians' and something tells me this one probably won't be different.

The link said prisoners also get released early by going through similar secular programs. Sounds like equal treatment to me. As the link also discusses the positive changes in the inmates after the Christian program, what's the problem?

The problem is that the program gives Christians more options to get out early than non-Christians. The secular programs are full to overflowing, creating new programs that only Christians have access to means the state is providing more options and a shorter wait on the waiting list (as Christians can use secular programs where non-Christians cannot use Christian ones).

Further, once again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because those who go to church behave better does not mean the church made them behave better, it could be that those inclined to behave themselves are more likely to go to church.

I could say the same of a lot of Christians in the US who are pushing for Christian law in place of what currently exists.

You could, but you would be wrong. What, only atheist-based laws are legitimate?

No, I wouldnt. Fact of the matter is there are a number of groups out there who would like to exile/execute non-Christians in the US. Some think that by cleansing the nation it will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Second Coming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a segment of Christianity that believes they are locked in a holy war against Islam and Atheism and believes that Christianity should be the law of the land, both literally and figuratively.

Define atheist-based laws. There are a number of laws that exist that overlap, like murder, robbery, etc.; that a state has every interest in maintaining even without a religious dogma to fall back on. Many more that arose out of secular concerns like which side of the street you drive on and what day you vote. Id turn the question around on you, ask which Religion only laws are legitimate but I suspect we would never agree on what qualifies as legitimate in that regard.

[East of Eden]

It doesn't (yet) for this one specifically, however other prisons do have release programs for 'good Christians' and something tells me this one probably won't be different.

The link said prisoners also get released early by going through similar secular programs. Sounds like equal treatment to me. As the link also discusses the positive changes in the inmates after the Christian program, what's the problem?

The problem is that the program gives Christians more options to get out early than non-Christians. The secular programs are full to overflowing, creating new programs that only Christians have access to means the state is providing more options and a shorter wait on the waiting list (as Christians can use secular programs where non-Christians cannot use Christian ones).

Further, once again, correlation does not imply causation. Just because those who go to church behave better does not mean the church made them behave better, it could be that those inclined to behave themselves are more likely to go to church.

I could say the same of a lot of Christians in the US who are pushing for Christian law in place of what currently exists.

You could, but you would be wrong. What, only atheist-based laws are legitimate?

No, I wouldnt. Fact of the matter is there are a number of groups out there who would like to exile/execute non-Christians in the US.

Never heard of them. I think they need a new publicist.

Some think that by cleansing the nation it will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven and the Second Coming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there is a segment of Christianity that believes they are locked in a holy war against Islam and Atheism and believes that Christianity should be the law of the land, both literally and figuratively.

I don't know about that, but radical Islam has declared itself to be in a holy war against infidels like us.

Define atheist-based laws. There are a number of laws that exist that overlap, like murder, robbery, etc.; that a state has every interest in maintaining even without a religious dogma to fall back on. Many more that arose out of secular concerns like which side of the street you drive on and what day you vote. Id turn the question around on you, ask which Religion only laws are legitimate but I suspect we would never agree on what qualifies as legitimate in that regard.

When someone participates on our democracy, the source of the values they bring to the table are nobody else's business.

[McCulloch]

A 'living constitution' is a dead constitution.

Spoken like a true theologian. I disagree. Every country's constitution must be adaptable, to change, slowly and with sober reflection, with the changing values of the society it represents. Case in point, the Constitution of the United States of America has a number of amendments

• Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery.
• Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law.
• Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.
• Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
• Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials.
• Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

It look to me that you have a pretty actively dead constitution.

What you advocate is a nine-person dictatorship.

No, what I advocate is known as the separation of powers, trias politica or checks and balances. This principle is the model for the governance of modern democratic states.

Rather than play that game, it would be more honest to get the political support to change the constitution.

No need to change it. The Supreme Court, acting within its constitutional mandate, have ruled on what it means. If you feel that the ruling was improper, then be honest and get the political support to change the constitution, thus over-ruling the Court.

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

According to your earlier reasoning, we should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's thought.

According to my reasoning, yes, you should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's remarkable insight. However, why would you? It has served your country well and has been the model for many other countries' subsequent constitutions.

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

No, I have not done that research. Is it relevant? At the time of the writing of the US constitution, the individual states' legislatures were not bound by the terms of the bill of rights. That came later.
In September 1776, Jefferson was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. During his term in the House, Jefferson established freedom of religion.

[Sir Rhetor]

To clarify, the prison cannot be funded publicly. Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release basically saying what I just did.

[Solon]

Speaking of Jefferson, do you have any indication that he or any other founders objected to the states who had established churches at the time?

There is this and this. Jefferson's bill for religious freedom in the state of Virginia and Madison's defense of said bill which he championed against Patrick Henry's bill which would have established several (Christian) denominations.

Edited to add a link to Henry's bill for completeness.

[JoeyKnothead]

To clarify, the prison cannot be funded publicly. Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release basically saying what I just did.

With respect, I think there's greater issues involved here. Folks are being considered for release based on their acceptance and adherence to religious indoctrination.

We should consider whether such belief systems are grounded in reality, and even morality. This prison is going to teach that there's a god who hates certain folks, initiating within the adherent a certain hatred. It's a very dangerous way to go about "rehabilitating" folks.

What do we do when these folks are released and they act on God's edict that some folks should be stoned to death?

[East of Eden]

What do we do when these folks are released and they act on God's edict that some folks should be stoned to death?

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

BTW, where is this happening outside of Islam?

[East of Eden]

Spoken like a true theologian. I disagree. Every country's constitution must be adaptable, to change, slowly and with sober reflection, with the changing values of the society it represents. Case in point, the Constitution of the United States of America has a number of amendments

• Thirteenth Amendment (1865): Abolishes slavery.
• Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law.
• Fifteenth Amendment (1870): Prohibits the federal government and the states from using a citizen's race, color, or previous status as a slave as a qualification for voting.
• Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex.
• Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials.
• Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age.

It look to me that you have a pretty actively dead constitution.

You completely missed my point. As I said, the amendment process is the right way to change the constitution, not by judicial fiat as was done with Roe v. Wade.

No, what I advocate is known as the separation of powers, trias politica or checks and balances. This principle is the model for the governance of modern democratic states.

A judiciary unmoored from the constitution is government by whim.

That has been the consistent interpretation of the constitution by the supreme courts since Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism, expressed this opinion.

That phrase from one of the founders has become the leftists battle cry. Interesting it was forgotten for 50 years after. Here is more from Jefferson:

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered A National Prayer for Peace, which petitioned:

Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

As is evident, Jeffersons belief in a separation between church and state did not preclude the very mention of God under state sanction.

Nearly 160 years after Jeffersons death, in the case of Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice William Rehnquist offered the decision of the United States Supreme Court:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history.The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jeffersons misleading metaphor for nearly forty years....

There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state].The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.

Offering his dissenting opinion on Michael Newdows pledge lawsuit, 9th Circuit Appeals Court Judge Ferdinand Fernandez said, in part:

My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdows theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. God Bless America and America The Beautiful will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

The above statement indicates Jefferson wasn't even a deist.

According to my reasoning, yes, you should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's remarkable insight. However, why would you? It has served your country well and has been the model for many other countries' subsequent constitutions.

Just pointing out the double standard. First you say it doesn't matter what the founders said, then you cite Jefferson.