Euhm... what?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3546512,00.html

Constitutional problems anyone?

“Participation is voluntary and inmates are free to transfer out.”

Nope. I don’t see a problem with it.

The government pays for it, and the government gets its money from us. The Constitution guarantees that taxpayer money won’t go to anything religious.

Besides that, the separation of church and state prevents the government from doing anything religious. If a group of private citizens wants to create a religious school, and use their own profits to pay for it, I have no problem. But if the government wants to create a religious school, and use taxpayer money to pay for it, than that’s a violation of church and state.

I oppose this.

If what I have been taught and told about the American Constitution this is a violation of it, but I won’t criticise it until I see the results.

“God told me to rob the bank.”

Well, it’s a little unconstitutional, BUT if it’s optional, I otherwise have no problem with it. I guess for some, they need the bible to go on ‘the right road’ (though the bible itself isnt the right road, IMO, it can help some people get on it).

Originally posted by Cybercompost
[b]

Nope. I don’t see a problem with it. [/b]

There’s no such thing as something being a little unconstitutional. This is uncostitutional and should never, ever happen. It’s government endorsed religion.

It doesn’t matter if its voluntary or not. It’s still a violation of church and state. If you think this is alright, you have a problem with the separation of church and state, as its currently defined(which is perfectly fine, if you do).

I’m very interested in what the results of this will be. What if it turns out that religious prisons actually do rehabilitate cons? What then?

Also note it mentioned that there were twenty four different faiths in this prison. It is not endorsing any one religion, which is another reason why I really don’t see much of a problem with it.

>Also note it mentioned that there were twenty four different faiths in this prison. It is not endorsing any one religion, which is another reason why I really don’t see much of a problem with it.

But separation of church and state, as we have come to understand it in this country, means separation of religion from government, period. Even if it is voluntary, for the government to create a religious institution goes against the Constitution.

Which all reminds me of the [for me] ominous quote from Joe Lieberman a few years back. “The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

I happen to disagree. It seems Jeb doesn’t.

And just because it’s “voluntary” doesn’t make it okay. How voluntary is it, anyway? What sort of pressures do inmates who “do not wish to volunteer” face from, say, the warden and guards, and what sort of incentives are in place for inmates who “convince” other inmates to join in.

It could be “voluntary” in the same sense that all the Party-sponsored clubs and fellowships in Nazi Germany were. Yes, they were officially “voluntary” but heaven help you if you didn’t join enough…might look like a subversive element.

I’m firmly behind Kagon on this one.

[EDIT: though at least I get some good sig material out of this article.]

24 different faiths. That doesn’t say which religions are being discussed. Considering how idiotically factious the american churches are, these could all be christian subdivisions. Furthermore, people drop out. They don’t say what kinds of people go through and more important don’t go through the system and why. Furthermore, even if it allows religious leeway, the government is nonetheless endorsing organized religion, which is something which should not be happening. There are already religious services optionally offered to inmates interested in participating in some jails. That’s different from the current set up since this set up is set up around religion. This is a clear violation of the separation between church and state.

It’s voluntary, meaning you choose to do it, not much to do in prison anyway. Ever think that it might actualy help some inmates?

Originally posted by BlueMageOne
Ever think that it might actualy help some inmates?

Eh, not really. :smiley:

The point isn’t that its helping inmates, but that the government pays for something religious using our money, which is unconstitutional.

meh, good points. I wasn’t really thinking about the constitution when I saw it. I actually am all for separation of church and state, BTW, it just seemed fine for reasons already stated (including the 24 different faiths part). I was thinking of the prisoners, not the constitution.

Reading topics here at RPGC one would gather the idea that the people here are nothing but strict constitutionalists. But images are often deceiving.

Of course I’ll be paying for that with my taxes…(DAMN YOU JEB BUSH!!!)

You won’t have to pay if it doesn’t get through.