Press Release from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Americans United Says Publicly Funded Evangelical Program Violates Church-State Separation, Denigrates Other Faiths
Americans United, used with permission

Can the government force inmates to become evangelical Christians as the price of receiving rehabilitation, better treatment while in prison and the prospect of earlier release?

Can taxpayers be forced to support a prison ministry that indoctrinates inmates in one religious tradition and attacks other faiths as false?

What if to make matters worse the sectarian program has no proof of success in its performance?

Those questions are at the heart of an important court hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Arguments in Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries will take place Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007, at 9 a.m. at the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse in St. Louis, Mo.

The case will be heard by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Circuit Judges Roger Wollman and Duane Benton.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, representing a group of inmates, inmates' family members and taxpayers, will urge the appellate panel to affirm that the "InnerChange Freedom Initiative" at Newton Correctional Facility in Iowa is unconstitutional. AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser will argue the case on behalf of Americans United.

A federal district court has already ruled that InnerChange violates the separation of church and state. On June 2, 2006, Judge Robert W. Pratt found that the publicly funded religious program at Newton transgresses the First Amendment ban on government support for religion. His decision is now on appeal.

"No American should be pressured by the government to conform to any particular religious viewpoint," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Inmates should have access to effective rehabilitation programs that prepare them for life outside prison, no matter what religion they subscribe to."

Continued Lynn, "This case has major implications for the Bush 'faith-based' initiative. Programs that are pervaded with religion should not get public funds."

Background

Prison Fellowship Ministries (PFM) is an evangelical Christian organization founded by convicted Watergate figure Chuck Colson. PFM describes its flagship rehabilitation program, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, as "a revolutionary, Christ-centered, faith-based prison program supporting prison inmates through their spiritual and moral transformation." InnerChange was sold to the Iowa Department of Corrections as a way to reduce recidivism rates, but it is primarily intended to convert inmates to evangelical Christianity.

State corrections officials contracted with PFM in 1999, originally funding the program through a surcharge on telephone calls made by Newton inmates. In 2002, the state legislature agreed to subsidize InnerChange with taxpayer funds. Between 1999 and 2006, Iowa gave more than $1.7 million in public funds directly to InnerChange.

Americans United sued in 2003 to stop the funding, arguing that the contract violated the First Amendment ban on state-supported religious indoctrination. 

The District Court Opinion

In an exhaustive 140-page decision, Judge Pratt rejected PFM's claims that the program did not advance religion. Most significantly, Judge Pratt declared, "For all practical purposes, the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one of its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates."

Here are three important points from the decision: 

InnerChange Amounts to Publicly Funded Religious Indoctrination. The Supreme Court has ruled that a "governmental entity is at the greatest risk of impermissibly advancing religion when the 'government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions.'" Judge Pratt agreed that the State of Iowa had directly funded this pervasively sectarian program and that InnerChange used the state funds for the indoctrination and conversion of inmates. Indeed, Judge Pratt said the contract forces Iowa taxpayers to support a program where "Every waking moment.is devoted to teaching and indoctrinating inmates into the Christian faith."

The State Provides Preferential Treatment to InnerChange Participants. InnerChange participants reap benefits unmatched in most medium-security prisons. Aside from living in Newton's more comfortable "Honor Unit," InnerChange participants enjoy private bathrooms, more time on the computer and increased visiting time with family and friends.

The major benefit, however, is a fast-track to parole. InnerChange participants can obtain treatment credits that are needed for early parole long before their counterparts in the general population. At the Newton facility, practicing Protestants are overwhelmingly more likely to reap this benefit because most of them participate in InnerChange.

InnerChange Denigrates Other Faiths. Judge Pratt found that the "intensive, indoctrinating Christian language and practice that makes up the InnerChange program effectively precludes non-Evangelical Christian inmates from participating.. [Prison Fellowship Ministries'] assertion that all inmates are welcome in the program is true in form only." The court ruled that the program discriminated against inmates of other religious persuasions by asking them "to compromise, if not completely abandon, their faith in order to participate."

Non-evangelical Christian inmates who were willing to enter the program were subjected to derogatory remarks by state-paid InnerChange employees. According to Judge Pratt's decision, "non-religious persons were often characterized by InnerChange staff as 'unsaved,' 'lost,' 'pagan,' those 'who served the flesh,' 'of Satan,' 'sinful,' and 'of darkness.'" Roman Catholic, Muslim and Native American faiths are likewise denigrated by program staff indeed, at trial, one inmate testified that an InnerChange counselor compared the Pope to Hitler.

Prison Fellowship's False Claims of Success

PFM officials have repeatedly claimed in the media that the InnerChange program is successful and leads to a startling reduction in recidivism rates. Interestingly, they did not make this argument in court.

In fact, there is no objective evidence that InnerChange works or reduces recidivism. In 2003, Colson released what he said was statistical validation for this claim, trumpeting a study purporting to show that inmates who took part in InnerChange returned to prison at a much lower rate than those who did not.

The study made a big splash in the media, but the claims quickly evaporated. Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California-Los Angeles, examined the data and found it to be statistically invalid. Prison Fellowship had excluded all the prisoners who did not finish the program, in essence kicking its failures out. When all of the participants were added back in, Kleiman found that InnerChange participants actually returned to prison at a slightly higher rate than a control group.

Judge Pratt made note of InnerChange's unsubstantiated claims, writing, "Aside from anecdotes, the Defendants offered no definitive study about the actual effects the InnerChange program has on recidivism rates."

Prison Chaplains Support Americans United

It is significant that the nation's leading professional prison chaplain associations are supporting Americans United.

The American Correctional Chaplains Association (ACCA), The American Catholic Correctional Chaplains Association and Jewish Prisoner Services International filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief urging the 8th Circuit to affirm the decision in Americans United's favor.

The chaplains' brief stresses that the three groups do not believe Judge Pratt's decision bans religion or religious leaders from prisons. The brief explains the nature of prison chaplaincy programs. The "cardinal principle of all chaplaincy programs," say the ACCA's Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, "is that of religious inclusion and nondiscrimination."

Observes the brief, "For a chaplain or volunteer to impose his or her religious beliefs on an inmate, to press an inmate to participate in religious activities, or to make religious acquiescence a [condition for] receiving services is not only a contravention of ACCA.standards, it is also a violation of the power and trust relationships that exist in such situations."

The brief goes on to cite the U.S. Bureau of Prisons' policy that "no private contractor may disparage the religious belief of an inmate, [or] coerce or harass inmates to change religious affiliation. Attendance at all religious activities is voluntary and unless otherwise specifically determined by the Warden, open to all."

The brief agrees with Judge Pratt's decision that InnerChange is "pervasively sectarian in character and discriminatory in operation." The program is clearly not intended, the chaplains argue, to serve the individual's spiritual needs; instead, it uses state resources to promote a narrow brand of religion.

[The letter below was recently presented to a judge whose choices were restricted by Drug War sentencing rules.  As a result, Don will begin a 42 month sentence in June. cl., ed.]

An Open Letter to My Sentencing Judge
By Don Meinshausen

 

 

First of all I would like to forgive all those who took part in my investigation, arrest, confinement, prosecution and sentencing.   Healing and communication does not begin until this happens.

I was planning on retiring in a year .   I was buying things from people half my age and there was no way that I could keep up with all night dance parties.   One can prolong one's youth only so long.   It was time for a change.

Another part of my changeover is going to a vegetarian diet, catching up on my reading and finally starting my writing career.  Many of my friends and clients were writers.  They all encouraged me to live an interesting life which my happened to fit in with my career.  So in the past two years I wrote my autobiography and had it published in Liberty magazine, which has had such distinguished contributors as Milton Friedman and his son David who is a law professor.  I am a regular columnist on www.libertyforall.net  and a newsletter for the Unitarian Church. I have also written for 
http://www.reason.com which once interviewed Reagan, Rational Review, strike the root, individualism and rhetoric.  Very little of my writing is on the drug war.   I have film reviews, essays on art, spirituality, the new beginnings of freedom in Vietnam, fundraising and humor and funeral practices.  I hope to have access to the internet while being confined so that I can make a career out of writing.
 

The writers who I have known come from all parts of the political spectrum and many are known for essays as well as fiction.   Spaulding Gray,  who the New York Times called the leading monologist of our day and a star in 60 films in its front page obituary was a proud psychedelic enthusiast and former customer.   D Keith Mano, a regular columnist for National Review for 20 years and successful novelist and screenplay writer wrote a letter on my behalf and called my autobiography brilliant.   Karl Hess who mentioned me as a friend in his autobiography also supported legalization.  He was a speech writer for Nixon and Ford and wrote the 1960 GOP platform.   He was also Goldwater's chief speechwriter and personal friend.   I have also smoked pot with three people who later became speechwriters for Reagan.   One is now Congressman Rohrabacher and has introduced legislation to allow for medical marijuana.
 

The most prestigious conservative political action conference is CPAC.   This year vice president Cheney and 5 US senators spoke there.   There was also a scheduled debate on legalization of drugs.   The opposition to legalization conceded that drugs should be decriminalized.   William F Buckley, Milton Friedman and many others who have written for National Review advocate legalization. 
 

In regards to my offense regarding MDMA I can point to several scientific studies done at universities showing successful treatment for people with terminal cancer in helping them deal with their oncoming demise.   There are studies showing good results in dealing with post traumatic stress syndrome.   On the other hand studies showing brain damage done by MDMA conducted by Dr Ricaute were recanted by him.   While that study was a basis for the current legislation there has been no notice by the courts or Congress.  There is also a quote from a Jan 2005 article in the New York Times that of the 19000 drug deaths recorded in NYC only 2 can be attributed to MDMA.   I am glad that after many years that the government is finally allowing studies on MDMA.  Perhaps this is due to MDMA's discoverer Dr. Alexander Shulgin who has had a close relationship and presided over the marriage of Dr. Segar   who was head of the DEA laboratories in the West.
 

Many of the facts presented here were shown in a documentary shown on ABC TV called "Ecstasy Rising".   There have been similar stories in other media.   The advocates of decriminalization include professors and doctors of medicine, law, economics, sociology,  theology as well as judges law enforcement and elected officials.

I am not arguing for a policy of no controls, not even for relatively benign drugs like hemp and psychedelics.   Penalties for drug use and sale should be based on the average potential harm and should include damage done by legal drugs as well. It is interesting to note that the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, Bill W. used LSD and found it worthwhile in treatment for alcoholism.   He notes this in his autobiography, "Pass It On".  

Other noteworthy acidheads of the 20th century were Jack Nicholson who has won 3 Academy Awards,  Cary Grant, who wanted to star in a film about the benefits of LSD, Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life and Fortune and his wife Clare Booth Luce, who was a congresswoman and filmmaker.  
 

When the government exaggerates or gives misleading information on drugs it destroys its credibility.   The same is true for punishments that are out of proportion.   I saw this happen in the 60's when the government painted marijuana as being bad as cocaine and heroin.  It also helps to popularize drugs by banning them as a symbol of rebellion and forbidden fruit like books were in olden times that were banned in Boston.  
 

Nevertheless MDMA is being more accepted in the culture.   "Six Feet Under"  on HBO is regarded as one of the best shows ever on television if you look at the awards and accolades given.  There have been two episodes when showing two separate people taking MDMA accidentally and receiving trancendant, informative and funny experiences.   No amount of anti-drug advertising can counteract this.   The only way to lure people from this is to give a better experience through another drug electronically through brain machines.

The pattern of acceptance of pot and psychedelics is like the path that minorities, women and gays have traveled to get acceptance.  Open-minded and cutting edge people especially in culture, academia and spirituality lead the way.  Then tolerance garners enthusiasm among college students, bohemians and the legal profession.  From there to the media and to grass roots organizing and resolutions by localities and professional groups and leading figures of the day, resulting in legal acceptance.   
 

The same pattern happened in ending Prohibition. The tragedy there was the ramping up of penalties in a last ditch attempt to forestall the inevitable.  This is happening in my case as well.   In 1987 I did 6 months for 2300 hits of LSD.  I now face 46-60 months for up to 3000 hits of MDMA.   My legal expenses also increased exponentially.  Experts will tell you that MDMA is less harmful and profound than LSD.   
 

There is a difference in the civil rights movements and the ending of Prohibition.  Alcohol legislation was handled on a state by state and eventually on a locality basis so that there are "dry" counties to this day.  Alcohol treatment is largely privately handled as well.  AA has wisely decided not to accept money from the government or even from foundations and is run largely by people in recovery.  The alcohol industry and bartenders alike have adopted a policy of not encouraging bad behavior.  Alcoholism and public, obnoxious drunkenness has declined because of this.   Other drugs, both good and bad have had their role in diversion from alcoholism.
 

Psychedelic and pot legalization is making progress using the civil rights model. There are more and more states allowing for medical marijuana and there are more social acceptance. As a libertarian I do not like the idea of discrimination laws, affirmative action or subsidies to groups that has followed from this path.  I prefer the conservative model of allowing localities to decide their own policies for enforcement and tolerance. 

Conservatives agree with libertarians that recognizing and dealing with abuse is something that is best done by families, spiritual and community groups or as a medical problem.  Liberals agree that his is better than the expense of loss of civil liberties and the emerging prison industrial complex. We should also realize that many people due to loss of manufacturing and agricultural careers need work that is more fulfilling than working in prisons.  

There is also a growing social isolation of police and prosecutors from the community.  Many are not invited to socialize with families and neighbors because of the obligation to report any infraction of the law.  In my otherwise law abiding family, children were allowed to drink wine on special occasions as a way to encourage a proper enculturation of alcohol into their lifestyle.   This is forbidden by law.
 

One way of dealing with youth coming to grips with alcohol is to have drinking permit.   After all we ask teens to get a permit and then license for driving.   In Germany a youth can drink beer or wine at 16 and drink spirits at 18.   It is good that there are classes already that deal with recognizing incipient alcoholism among cohorts, etc.   What I would also suggest is that students while being videotaped on a driving test machine take progressively more alcohol so that they can see and review their changes in behavior and reaction time.  Licenses can be given in response to good behavior such as good grades, community service or joining the military.  The same can be done for other drugs. 

The psychedelic community has performed better than any other drug community including alcohol and tobacco.  I know of many cases where people went on to obtain advanced degrees and written books because of their psychedelic experiences.  There are over 100 books like this and many scientific papers and studies.  There is a website that contains over 20,000 pages of information where everyone can go and get questions answered anonymously by a doctor.  The website is http://www.erowid.com and the webhosts have spoken at NIDA conferences and were commended there for their service.

I am saddened that so little regard and so much hostility is given by Congress and those administering the drug laws to these efforts to achieve harm reduction.   Approval of studies are held back by years due to legal roadblocks.  Even open legislative hearings on the safety of MDMA were sidestepped.  Perhaps this is a result of the 60's when these drugs became symbol of a culture that was in protest against war, racism and violation of civil liberties.

It doesn't have to be this way.  We are working with the drug treatment community and reasonable law enforcement people already in handling large events such as rock concerts for drug problems.  We are looking for open, confidential even anonymous dialog with the legal community and other interested groups to help deal with the problems and opportunities of a more free society. 
 

I hope that this can be a new beginning.  I hope also that the judge and whatever institution that I am sent to will allow me to help in counseling, teaching and writing; allow me access to the internet and nutritional supplements to deal with my diabetes, allergies, asthma and arthritis.   I intend for this to be published and invite the judge, prosecutor, the law enforcement community and other interested individuals to comment on this when published to begin the dialog of healing and liberty. 

To respond, PLEASE write to Don Meinshausen
                                                   Inmate #08996-050
                                                   FCI Fort Dix
                                                   Ft Dix, NJ 08640

He is eager for correspondents. 

Please send articles about current events of interest, especially from a libertarian perspective.

Also, if you would like to help him and transcribe and email out some of  his writings to various libertarian lists, do write him!! He'd appreciate it.

If you want to send him some money for personal toiletries etc., since he makes so little at his job, ask him the best way to do that. I know they recently changed the procedure but have not been able to find out how though it should be somewhere on http://bop.gov  (Bureau of Prisons site)

Also if your mail ever comes back to you because they say they have moved him, there is an Inmate Locater on http://bop.gov

UPDATE:

March 4, 2007.  Halfway through his term, Don just called this editor. Prison is boring and lonely, and he would REALLY appreciate your correspondence.  He has an original mind that crosses disciplines like a native New York J-walker late for a job interview.

Don is mentioned in the new book Radicals for Capitalism, by Brian Doherty. (cl, ed.)

For more from Don, see his page: FreeDonNow
 

[The opinions expressed in Pagan Institute Report are the author's own,
and should not be construed as those of the editor or The Pagan Institute, Inc. cl, ed.]
  

GreenViews

McFarland's  Commentary


Date: 8/6/03
By Lowell McFarland lowell@optonline.net

But when you look carefully at the Penn study, it's clear that the program didn't work.

The InnerChange participants did somewhat worse than the controls: They were slightly more likely to be rearrested and noticeably more likely (24 percent versus 20 percent) to be re-imprisoned. 

If faith is, as Paul told the Hebrews, the evidence of things not seen, then InnerChange is an opportunity to cultivate faith; we certainly haven't seen any results.

So, how did the Penn study get perverted into evidence that InnerChange worked? Through one of the oldest tricks in the book, one almost guaranteed to make a success of any program: counting the winners and ignoring the losers. The technical term for this in statistics is "selection bias"; program  managers know it as "creaming." Harvard public policy professor Anne Piehl, who reviewed the study  before it was published, calls this instance of it "cooking the books."
 

Loch Sloy!
Tuan Today
"Tuan MacCarrill/MacParthalon,
forever the Celtic story!"

Lowell McFarland

mailto:lowell@optonline.net