A press release issued by Americans United for Separation of Church and State today stated that a proposed "Christian" prison in Wakita, Oklahoma, could not be supported with public funds without violating the separation of church and state mandated by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.The proposed 600 bed prison is the brainchild of Bill Robinson, founder of Corrections Concepts Inc., himself a former convict. According to its promoters, the estimated $42 million facility would be America's first "all-Christian prison" and would employ only "born-again" Christians in all its positions. Robinson, who has ministered to inmates since 1985, said, "God gave me this vision... to go build a prison." He has now signed an agreement with the town of Wakita (pop. 380) to manage the facility if it is ever built.
That may be a very big "if."
In a letter to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, AU notes that the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a similar religious program in Iowa in its 2007 Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries decision.
The letter additionally states, “If the Department provides funding to Corrections Concepts’ prison indoctrination will be the inevitable result, just as it was in Prison Fellowship Ministries. And, just as inevitably, the funding of such indoctrination will violate the Constitution.” The letter was signed by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser and AU Staff Attorney Ian Smith.
In their press release, Americans United executive director, Barry Lynn says, “It is wrong for government to take taxpayers’ money and spend it on religious indoctrination. That’s a violation of the fundamental rights of every American."
“I strongly believe," he goes on, "that inmates should have access to religious services of their own choosing, but government should never favor one faith over others or coerce inmates to participate in religion.”
Atheists and secularists aren't the only ones condemning the idea of public funding for a faith-based prison. Dr. Bruce Prescott, executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, wrote the following in his blog:
I am a "born again" Baptist minister. I firmly believe that faith in Christ changes hearts and transforms lives. I am also deeply convicted that government has no role in promoting faith of any kind.
If some Christians in Oklahoma or elsewhere want an "all-Christian prison" it needs to be built and operated at "all-Christian expense."
I agree with the founding fathers of our state who made this clear in the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma (1907):
Section II-5: Public Money or Property — Use for Sectarian Purposes.
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such
.This is not the first time Corrections Concepts Inc., has run into opposition to its faith-based prison idea. The proposal has already been rejected by a number of counties in Texas despite CCI's assurances that only privately-raised funds would be used.
CCI's attorney, Dallas-based John Sheedy, has his own idea of why the firm has run into so much opposition. He believes Satan is responsible. “He exists, he doesn’t (sic) this project to succeed,” he said. “He is doing everything he can to defeat this project and he is using good people with good intentions. Satan is much more powerful than anybody in this room, he will twist that person around where they think they are doing the right thing in fighting it.”
Photo Credit:
1) Prison cell (photo provided by www.rightwingwatch.org)
If you like my articles, you can click on "Subscribe by email" to receive notice when new ones are posted.
Comments
Maybe they should put Sheriff Joe Arpaio in charge of the prison. He is our local tinpot dictator in Phoenix and is legendary for brutalizing inmates, feeding them moldy bologna at a cost of 37 cents a day, and charging them for rent and medical treatment. He would find a way to make the prison pay for itself. And considering that christians and especially fundamentalists are over-represented in the prison population, it could end up being a very lucrative enterprise.
The prison system that exist today is the result of Quakers, such Ben Franklin with the idea of doing penance. Hence the word, "penitentiary". Separation of church and state means "no government shall be regulted by religion". What you have failed to mention here, is this is a private prison in the conceptualization stage. It must meet specific criteria established by Oaklahoma D.O.C. State money is given, depending on how the state may benefit from a private correctional facility.
Amen to Sheriff Joe Arpaio running prisons.
When a person starts saying that those who disagree with them are possessed... that's when I start getting nervous. He probably needs to be committed.
Contrary to common belief, Americans United for Separation of Church and State is NOT an atheist organization, as your headline implies. We take a strictly neutral approach to religion, and our members run the gamut of beliefs, from militant atheists on one end to Baptists ministers on the other (in fact, Bruce Prescott, who you cite, is also a member of AU), united in one cause, that of maintaining the wall of separation between church and state. Which this proposal would breach in no uncertain terms. Bruce is right: If Christians want their own prison, let them build and maintain it with church money.
Richmond Evangelical Examiner... Do you know who John Locke and former president (and Declaration of Independence author) Thomas Jefferson were? Please don't make up arbitrary definitions of "separation of church and state".
Thanks for the information, Farnsworth68. I hope "secularists" fit the bill better.
Hello huh! You might add James Madison, principle author of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, too. Like Jefferson he also (in 1811) used the term "separation of church and state" to describe what the 1st amendment does.
Hello Farnsworth68. I wanted to add another point about private prisons, faith-based or otherwise. There is no way the state can remain separate from such institutions since it's the state, not private money, that pays for prisoner upkeep. The state having no relationship with private institutions beyond sending them prisoners is beyond the realm of the possible.
Thank you Bruce Prescott! It is refreshing to find a minister with common sense enough to understand the purpose behind the Separation of Church and State.
And thanks to you too, Hugh! This article has turned me onto AU, which is an organization that I will be researching further and perhaps even become involved with.
Sure, I've heard of Locke and Jefferson. I also am aware of the little reading you have done on this subject. Typical of an atheist. That is why nothing makes sense to you people.
Jefferson, since you want to name names, had an affection for wanting the American Indians to know of Jesus Christ. He authorized a budget for missions to teach the Indians of Christianity. He also allowed for church services to be held in the Capitol building (lol). On publick grounds!. Come on man. You have not done nearly enough research to be throwing terms, such as "arbitrary". Nice sounding argument, though. But the fact still remanis, in the case of Massachusetts, if you would like to investigate, the government was under religious oppression.. Government and religion shall remain independant of one another as a matter of protecting conscience in matters of the will of the people by whom government exist. Even your wikipedia source sites this. .
Richmond Evangelical Examiner said:
"Typical of an atheist. That is why nothing makes sense to you people."
Careful there, your prejudices are showing. Lets not get into a battle of who's dumber than whom here.
The intention of the first amendment, as Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists was to create a wall of separation between church and state. This was meant to be a complete separation, neither allowing the government to influence what people believe, nor allowing any religious group to gain any leverage over the government. These are both needed to ensure religious freedom, but it's not religious freedom unless you are also free to choose not to believe in any religion at all.
As Obama said during his inauguration, (paraphrasing) we are not a Christian nation, we are a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Buddists, among others, as well as atheists.
I agree with Dr. Bruce Prescott. Let the states run their prisons. Christians should not get involved in building modern correctional facilities. Best to leave that to athiests. They can build them by the gulags.
Richmond Evangelical Examiner... you say I've done little reading on this, yet you seem to think Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and proponent of Christianity. Hmm, maybe you're confused about what deism is? Or the difference between admiring Jesus' teachings versus believing Christian doctrine to be true.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!