Stones Cry Out

"Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship is feeling the heat, although it may be the rest of us feeling it if they are shut out from the countries prisons."

I can't tell from your post: Are people trying to keep PF out of prisons or is it that they are trying to stop federal funding of their evangelism efforts?

I'd oppose the former and support the latter.

I find it interesting that when I support gov't funding for assisting with poverty, I'm told I'm "using the gov't to do my religious bidding with other people's moneys - essentially stealing!" but when some advocate using gov't money for more churchy enterprises (like evangelism in prisons), they think it's okay.

That's not what you're talking about here, is it?

From the "suing Prison Fellowship" link:

The judge sided with Barry Lynn and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and ruled that the program violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. He also took the unprecedented step of ordering IFI to repay the state of Iowa some $1.7 million—even though IFI performed its services in good faith under a valid contract, and even though 60 percent of all the funding was raised privately.

My issue with public funding of poverty programs has never been a religious one, but that only 25 cents of your tax dollar makes it to the poor, whereas I'm quite confident that when the money goes to private groups directly, like PF, the target audience benefits much more on fewer given dollars.

Further, the closer to the problem, the better and generally more accountable the government doing the work, which is the root of my problems with the Feds implementing one-size-fits-all remedies.

I don't disagree with you there. Local is nearly always better and smaller is often better, as well. I don't know exactly what PF does in prisons but if it's evangelism: More power to them. Just return the state money. I don't want my church receiving state dollars for evangelism purposes.

If it's for education purposes, poverty assistance, recidivism reduction, that's okay with me if the private sector isn't taking care of the problem. Evangelism should be paid for by Christians, though, not the state.

Or, looking at it from another angle: I'm okay with Muslims going to prisons to help reduce the recidivism rate or to educate and even getting state money to do so. I'm opposed to paying Muslims state dollars to evangelize. I suspect you are, too.

Am I right? You don't want tax dollars going to Muslim evangelism, do you? Nor Christian?

I did a little web searching before responding, because I remembered something about Thomas Jefferson using federal funds to evangelize the Indians. What I found was this article about church/state cooperation throughout the history of our country, and it goes back all the way to Washington, and further forward than some would think. (The section "Educating Native Americans" covers what I had remembered.)

My answer to your question is that, yes, I think the voters and their representatives in Iowa have every right to choose and fund a program that is religious in nature without requiring that all religions be represented. And yes, this goes for whatever religion they may choose. If they think that sending in Muslim workers will help curb violence, they should be free to do it. That wouldn't be my choice, but then that's the thing with religious freedom.

I think an incredible misreading of the Establishment Clause has brought about a legal climate that the Framers never intended. "Establishment" meant something specific to them; the requirement to pledge allegiance to the state religion before you could hold political office, with the head of the state being the head of the church. This is why Jefferson could both speak of letting men's conscience be free of government coercion, while at the same time funding programs to send missionaries. Once is force, the other provides a choice. No inconsistency.

And this is one more reason to keep these decisions at the local level. A Federal law paints with too broad a brush. A local decision (and local funding) is more likely to be representative of those who live near the prison. I don't think any state funding should be returned, but in the current legal climate, it probably will be.

"I think the voters and their representatives in Iowa have every right to choose and fund a program that is religious in nature without requiring that all religions be represented."

Yeah, we disagree on this point. I don't want tax dollars going to fund evangelism - whether that is for Muslims, Christians or Little Jewish Ladies for Buchanan.

"I don't want tax dollars going to fund evangelism - whether that is for Muslims, Christians or Little Jewish Ladies for Buchanan."

Based on the Church/State misunderstanding, which it is, or based on what you happen to personally agree supporting? I do agree that if the Feds will it, it will guarantee funding for all (until someone from the ACLU demands no money for Christians). I like the idea of local levels deciding which one to support. That smacks of democracy.

So back to agreeing with supporting something I do or do not agree with, why are my tax dollars going to fund Planned Parenthood's form of evangelism when I am violently -- with every fibre of my being -- opposed to their "charitable work?"

Jane asked:
"Based on the Church/State misunderstanding, which it is, or based on what you happen to personally agree supporting?"

Based upon my Baptist/anabaptist tradition of not wanting the state tangling itself up in God's church. Based upon the notion that when it does so, it often if not always harms the church's reputation.

There ARE certainly problems with our taxation system: WHY am I forced to support such an unGodly massive military machine? Why am I forced to support our massive and destructive road-building program or welfare for oil companies?

It's part of the imperfect nature of a Republic. I'm open to ideas that would allow people to opt out of supporting programs that are morally repugnant to them, but I don't know how to do that.

(As a starting point, allowing folk to choose not to have their money allocated for war or abortion - two hot topics - might be an interesting experiment. I'd expect that the effects might be more damaging to the war machine - which is 100s of times bigger than the "abortion machine" - than many would care for, but it would be an interesting experiment).

So, you'd really support tax dollars going to pay Muslims to evangelize in prisons as long as the local folk voted that way?