Blog from the Capital

In today's Detroit News, the Acton Institute's Jordan Ballor writes an op-ed arguing for faith-based prison programs and decrying efforts to have them removed on church-state grounds. He especially laments the Iowa decision--headed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals--that disallowed the InnerChange prison rehabilitation program (IFI).

The fact that IFI's programs are strictly voluntary does not seem to matter to its opponents. Neither do the results. The warden at Iowa's Newton facility, Terry Mapes, spoke of the benefits of IFI's work to the prison society. "It's the pro-social behavior," he said. "It is the thing that we hope (in) corrections will make a difference."
...
Providing comprehensive ministry to the marginalized in society is at the core of the Christian mission. Jesus, in speaking of the activities of the righteous, declares, "I was in prison and you came to visit me" (Matthew 25:36).

Secular governments should neither infringe on the exercise of religious practice, which includes ministry to prisoners, nor deny the social benefits of spiritual and internal renewal.

As for the last points, I agree! These arguments often seem to become accusations that church-state separation advocates would invalidate all prison ministry programs. Not true! Ministering to the imprisoned has always been an important part of the work of the church, and the volunteers who undertake that work have my support and admiration.

Here's the problem. There are right ways and wrong ways for a state-run prison facility to incorporate religious prison ministries. First is money. We don't want tax money going administer, support or fund the religious indoctrination of prisoners. If we wouldn't want the state funding a Muslim prisoner program, we shouldn't want to be publicly funding pervasively Christian programs either. Second is options. Prisoners should be able to enter religious programs voluntarily, and with as many faith options as possible--not coerced or manipulated with clear benefits over those who choose not to participate.

Ballor refers to the "fact" of the IFI program being "voluntary" but he begs the question. Whether or not the program was truly voluntary is one of the issues in dispute - the District Court judge looked at the evidence and decided that, among other problems, it was not in fact sufficiently voluntary. Those of us who--from a religious perspective--encourage church-state separation should emphasize that there are right ways for faith-based prison programs to operate. Ballor implies here that advocates of decisions like InnerChange and similar challenges would take all religion out of prisons. That's simply not the case. So long as religious elements aren't publicly funded, and the religious programs are truly voluntary (with the more faith options the better), faith-based prison ministries should continue to be an important part of the work of the church, and an important avenue in the lives of many prisoners.