Religion for Captive Audiences, With Taxpayers Footing the Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html

When debates regarding the teaching of religion in public institutions occur, they are more often than not referring to religious curriculum taught in public schools. However, I came across a New York Times article from December 10, 2006 entitled, “Religion for Captive Audiences, with Taxpayers Footing the Bill.” This article discusses the wider issue of religious programs being taught with state and/or federal funds but it more specifically deals with religious programs which teach religion and conduct what the article calls, “intensely religious rehabilitation programs.” These rehabilitation programs seek “to ‘cure’ prisoners by identifying sin as the root of their problems” and showing inmates “how God can heal them permanently, if they turn from their sinful past.” The program directors are also in charge of deciding whether an inmate has reached an acceptable level of “spiritual awakening.” Some of these programs (the program at the root of this article is based in Newton, Iowa) have actually recorded significant success once the participating inmates are released. In 2001, the Bush Administration unveiled the White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives project which would help to fund programs such as the religious rehabilitation programs in prisons and tax-payers foot the bill for these programs.

There are a two key points that are raised by this article in regards to religion and American law. The most obvious and fundamental question is whether these programs should be paid for with public funds (especially considering that many of these prison programs teach one particular brand of Christianity). Secondly, do these prison programs violate the free-exercise and establishment clauses.

Because these kinds of religious rehabilitation programs teach a specific religious tradition it clearly violates the establishment clause. This is because if the state is going to fund these programs at all, they should fund enough programs to provide all inmates with the same sort of opportunity for “spiritual development.” The article cites an inmate who says he was ignored and ridiculed by the program directors and participants because the program was evangelical and the ridiculed inmate was Roman Catholic. It is not that we cannot hurt the feelings of inmates, but because the state is funding one program with one particular religious agenda, one could argue that the state is essentially establishing a religious tradition. While you are detained by the state, only those with a particular religious tradition will be allowed a chance for religious rehabilitation which could see your chances of parole heightened. Secondly, while it is true that the programs are optional, the state is quite literally providing a captive audience. This is similar to an argument regarding optional religious curriculums in public schools. While the program is optional, attendance at the public school is not optional. Therefore the state is providing students for these religious groups to recruit from. The prison programs are an even more extreme example. These individuals are literally a captive audience. The state might suggest that it allows for free-exercise because inmates can opt out, but in actuality, their freedom to exercise religion is curtailed because they are forced to remain in an environment where these programs are taking place and where they do not have equal opportunities for spiritual rehabilitation. Additionally, inmates who do not partake in the program are at risk of receiving “demerits” because of their unwillingness to participate. As the article notes, these demerits could end up on an inmates parole file.

Public funds should not be used to finance these sorts of programs in the first place, in my opinion. Under conditions where the state is providing a “captive audience” to a religious organization, free-exercise is being limited. We must provide services to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hinus, Buddhists and all others in order to protect freedom to exercise. We must give all inmates an equal chance for this spiritual rehabilitation if we are to offer it at all.