Church-state separation
needs a closer look

Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

E-mail this story to a friend

A recent judicial ruling that Prison Fellowship's work with inmates is unconstitutional is sad and legally unmerited. A University of Pennsylvania study found that Prison Fellowship's inmate rehabilitation program reduced the recidivism rate for those participating in the program from 66 percent to 8 percent. This stands in contrast to the secular rehabilitation programs of the 1960s through the early 1990s that did nothing to reform prisoners.

Yet the judge ruled the Prison Fellowship program unconstitutional. Why? Basically, because Prison Fellowship is a Christian group and some of its funding (40 percent) comes from the government -- thus, in the judge's opinion, violating the First Amendment's church-state separation principle.

This is the latest example of a national ignorance plague -- ignorance of the true meaning of church-state separation. The case was brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group that is fast becoming as foolish and bothersome as the ACLU (the Anti-Christian Liberties Union). And in this case, as in so many others, AU is wrong.

Though Prison Fellowship's program received government funding, it was not coercive -- participation was voluntary. Furthermore, it just plain worked. It's interesting to note that many of our founders regarded Biblical teachings as the best and only source for curing society's ills, and believed that America and its government should adhere to the Bible's moral and spiritual teachings. With secular thinking like this judge's, is it any wonder our prisons are overcrowded?

Jason Cunningham

Windsor

www.truthemporium.blogspot.com