Although this only means the case now goes to the 8th circuit, listed in dkospedia as "moderate court (?)", I think the judge should be applauded for trying to frame the case correctly from the beginning.
In his ruling on Friday, Judge Robert W. Pratt, chief judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, said he was not ruling on the efficacy of religious programs in rehabilitating inmates or "the ultimate truthfulness about religion."
Instead, Judge Pratt ruled that the InnerChange program had violated the separation of church and state by using money from taxpayers to pay for a religious program, one that gave special privileges to inmates who accepted its evangelical Christian teachings and terms.
more after these messages...
The attorney for InnerChange, the group who is raking in the cash for this particular "faith based initiative", made one of the most ridiculous statements defending InnerChange's position I have seen lately.
"I think it is an extreme decision that if allowed to stand strikes a pretty serious blow at the religious freedom of prisoners," Mr. Earley said. "And it strikes an equally destructive blow to rehabilitation efforts in the prisons of America."
I can't help but wonder if this hack really cannot understand the irony of his statement. I think what he meant to say was "I think it is an extreme decision that if allowed to stand strikes a pretty serious blow at the religious freedom of christian prisoners." Actually, I don't think that. I am sure that he fucking wishes he could say that because that is what this is about. Religious freedom is fine for Christians, but fuck everybody else.
The hypocrisy of the evangelical right truly knows no bounds. They should just call it what they want to: Christian Freedom. It has about as much to do with religious freedom as GBCW diaries do.
Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a good idea, even if it works. I am sure if I tried hard enough, I could drive down to the Waffle House with my feet instead of my hands, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I do not dispute the fact that InnerChange may be beneficial to some christian inmates, but I have to ask "Does anyone who doesn't own the Left Behind books think that the religious right gives one rat's ass about rehabilitating prisoners?" They are trying to use the very same "slippery slope" argument that leads to me marrying a box turtle - and using it on the sly. They love the slippery slope. They want to slide all the way fucking down the slippery slope. They are counting on it. A nudge here, a push there, and woo hoo! Theocracy.
I know I am painting with broad brush here, but this case and InnerChange have nothing to do with religious freedom, rehabilitation, or recidivism. I must qualify my feeling with some experience though, bear with me.
When I say "religious right", I by no means include all conservative Christians. I spent 3 years working as the Clinical Coordinator and Residential Manager of a Residential Rehabilitation Center in a rural factory town in Alabama. For lack of better terms, it was a "half-way" house for alcoholics and drug addicts, but we did receive some state funding from the Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and therefore had much more stringent rules and requirements for entrance and residence. There was an aged Baptist preacher who had volunteered several hours a day at the facility for well over 15 years and we actually had a required meeting once a week led by him. Was this a violation of the separation of church and state? Certainly. But "Preacher" as he was known to all, did not prostylize or try to convert anyone. He genuinely cared for the well being of the clients and the staff. And let me just note that being a live in staff member on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 years in a house with 15-20 clients, I needed all the support I could get. Preacher and his wife donated money, clothes, and time as unselfishly as someone could. Every Christmas Eve, for clients who were not eligible for or having nowhere to go on pass (usually about 5-10) and for staff stuck minding the store (me for 3 years straight) they had a lovely dinner and much bemoaned "carolling" at their home. This had a lasting and positive effect for many of my clients and myself. The meetings were not preaching, per sea, but were religious in nature. He would go through the 7 deadly sins and the 10 commandments, one a week, each in turn for about 20 minutes. This went on every Tuesday except for the 1 month a year he spent in China.
Every once in awhile, I would get a client who would threaten to "call somebody" or "call his lawyer" saying we were violating his religious freedom. Usually this would be from an obstinate client that most likely would not make it though the program to begin with unless his attitude changed. I would explain to them that residence was an option and he could leave anytime he wanted. This was, to an extent, unfair in some cases since clients were often court ordered to be in a half-way house after treatment. But I would explain to them that were 15 or so other half-way houses in the state and they were free to go to one of them and I wold happy to call their Probation Officer or Court Referral Officer and let them know they were leaving. To some, this my sound harsh, but the point I was trying to make with clients was the lack of respect for a man who gave so freely of himself for their benefit. And I will freely admit that I could be a real ass about any disrespectful action of any client for any reason. Having been a client there myself and a fierce believer in the separation of church and state, I was still not asking them to endure anything that I had not. In my 3 years there, through countless clients, I never lost the argument. And I can't remember a single client who completed the program not becoming endeared to Preacher.
Now I feel fully qualified for my rant, as I come from a position of experience with conservative Christians, rehabilitation, and recidivism. Another quote first:
Mr. Earley said he expected the decision to be reversed on appeal, either at the Eighth Circuit or in the Supreme Court.
Both sides are banking on the possibility that this case could rise through levels of appeal and set precedent about religion-based initiatives, or more significantly, about the separation of church and state, legal experts said.
Douglas Laycock, professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas in Austin, said of InnerChange's strategy: "I think they're betting on getting to the Supreme Court and that Sam Alito and John Roberts will be there. And they're betting that they have five votes to win."
They are only seeking precedent for the next round and cash for their pockets. That is it. Plain and simple. The lives of the men/women they help or do not help mean nothing to them. And here is the "money" quote to prove it:
Judge Pratt said that the program had to be halted in 60 days and that InnerChange had to return about $1.5 million it had received from the State of Iowa.
Emphasis mine. This is about money, not helping people. Preacher was not a wealthy man. He could have been had he not given so much money to the place I worked and gone to China on his own dime for a month every year for the 30 years preceding. He didn't give a shit about money. He cared about people. And even if the idea for InnerChange began with the premise of helping people, when it became something that someone was trying to get $1.5 million from the state of Idaho for, it stopped being christian and it stopped being for the inmates. The Preacher did what he did and asked nothing in return. Not your faith, not your conversion, and certainly not your money. He did it because as he saw it, he had no other choice. He could not stand idly by without trying to help. And any help he gave was his reward - and mine as well. Someone once asked C.S. Lewis how much they should give to charity and he replied "Just a little bit more than you can afford."
Preacher gave everyone he knew more than he could afford, and the even a little bit more. The people who fight on the wrong side of lawsuits like this area disgrace to him and to his Christianity.