Obama was supposed to be a rising star in the Democrat party; but if he continues to talk like that, he'll be marginalized and shut out by the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and others of their ilk.
Don't be to sure. They have their little plan to try to win back some
support from the Christians. They wont mean it, but heck, they tell
anyone anything to get a vote. Then look down their noses at them
like they do the blacks and Hispanics they always are going to help.
And many in the minority groups keep on believing them and voting
for them and asking when are you going to help.
crookshanks.. yes they used to be such a tolerant bunch.. now it's like the new leftist intelligensia has hijacked the moderates...
BTW there are fanatics on the other side too... i.e. blind hate Barry Lynn
Shutting Down a Program that Works
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
Just six days after a federal judge in Iowa declared an effective, faith-based program for prisoners uncons utional, a private commission of leading criminal justice experts released a report detailing the sad state of America’s prisons.
The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons observed that “what happens inside jails and prisons does not stay [there]. It comes home with prisoners.” To combat violence inside the prisons, the Commission says, we need effective programming because “[h]ighly structured programs are proven to reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and to lower recidivism rates after release.”
So why in heaven’s name would a federal judge shut down a highly structured program for prisoners that has been proven to lower recidivism? Why? Because that program, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative, or IFI, a program launched by Prison Fellowship ten years ago, is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
You’ve heard me talk about IFI on “BreakPoint” in the past couple of weeks, how prisoners volunteer to participate, how they take educational classes and perform community service. I’ve also told you how independent studies have found that IFI drastically reduces recidivism rates.
None of that mattered to the federal judge, who ruled against Iowa, Prison Fellowship, and IFI in a lawsuit brought by none other than Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Instead, the judge decided that IFI “coerced” prisoners into enrolling essentially because it offered them a quality program and the tools they need to succeed on the outside. As if drug treatment, job preparation, and general education are some kind of bait to lure unsuspecting prisoners into an evangelical Christian program where they could be converted!
But every single prisoner who testified at the trial admitted that he was not coerced into enrolling in the program. Nor are they coerced into staying in it or converting to Christianity.
To add injury to insult, the judge also ordered Prison Fellowship and IFI to repay Iowa $1.5 million—funds the state paid to IFI pursuant to a valid contract to perform needed services such as education and drug treatment.
Prison Fellowship and IFI will appeal the judge’s ruling, and we certainly hope to be vindicated. And I should mention that the program will stay open during the appeals process.
But make no mistake—the judge’s extreme and punitive ruling sends a clear message to any faith-based organization or church that provides needed social services: “Go away. Go away, even if your program is working and inmates are volunteering and asking for the services.” That’s the worst message any government could possibly send, especially as we look at our prison system and its 2.3 million inhabitants in need of transformation.
The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons concludes by saying, “We all bear responsibility for creating correctional ins utions that are safe, humane, and productive. This is the moment to confront confinement in the United States.”
Well, then it is certainly not the moment to exclude programs—faith-based or not—that offer “safe, humane, and productive” solutions.
hegamboa, aren't you talking about a cons utional question?
If the Christian program is the only quality program available, then normal prisons are not a place to punish, than more of a place to enroll prisoners, or, as the article calls them 2,3 million inhabitants. If a state of federal goverment forces a prisoner make a call to be a Christian, to be an agnostic, to live a quality life or just to be a passive prisoner for the remainder of the sentence, than there is no seperation of church and state.
All of the prisoners, when being parolled or completely released, have their lifes entirely in their hands. Government on the other hand, cannot endorse morality on their prisoners, if they do not except it freewillingly (that means not being in jail). Religion cannot be enforced by government, and that is just pure reason, ain't it? Offcourse only if you support the notion of separation of church and state. But that is not something fanatical...it IS in your cons ution, you figured it out second only to much hated French.
It just seems you will soon have an European style prisons, while we are becoming more American in trades.
These programs are only partially funded by the government... and that portion of the funding goes strictly to meeting secular needs... nothing doctrinal.
Most of the funding comes from donations. Irregardless, if a program works why shoot yourself in the foot by removing it???
Last edited by hegamboa; 06-29-2006 at 08:03 AM.
Couse then you have partialy privatized/financed rehabilitation for people who choose to rehabilitate by the best program offered. People who go to jail are being filtered by who has no hope and is passive and people who aggresively want to be better and are financed to be religious.
Lets skip the fact that this is Christian project (to be objective). What if similar project would be crafted by Charles Manson type of religion? And perhaps even better question, how could be know that that kind of a guy is not in jail in this Christian, partly privatly founded programme?
If this programme is better just becouse of the additional money, then program is not equal to other programs and motivates inmates to "go Christian". That is not cons utional.
Why stop a program that works? Well I wouldn't stop the program, I would stop the crime. I would be a superhero...To make political changes, you must look in the mirror. You have more people in jail that Slovenia has people. USA should do something like Great Britain did when they found Australia. Repopulate Iraq. Now that is reform!
Seriously, you just cannot say that someone respecting a cons ution should be called fanatic. That's all that I'm saying.
hegam:
no offense but this word is a dead give away of someone overstepping their intellectual bounds to try and sound intelligent. let me explain.
there is no such word in the English language as "irregardless." the word "regardless" already means "without regard to/for." modifying it with the "ir" prefix renders the word senseless. People who use it inevitably lose credibility, as it is nonsensical word that you will never find in any dictionary etc.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
irregardless
SYLLABICATION: ir·re·gard·less
PRONUNCIATION: r-gärdls
ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0238400.html
This is not unusual for a Democrat. Carter, Clinton and Gore were all born again Christians and were not out there fighting to get God out of the Pledge, etc.... That is a right wing talking point, they frame Dems as being anti-Christian to score political points with organized conservative Christians.
I myself have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and yet tend to be somewhat left of center in American politics.
There are nutjobs on both sides of the aisle and there are nutjobs in various religions. Think of the snake handlers in Appalachia or the nuts that harass the funerals of fallen soldiers.
My challenge is when having fellowship with Christian brothers and sisters is to remind them of the teachings of Christ and His focus on helping the poor and spreading the Gospel. I believe many Christians do follow leaders (pastors, televangelists, etc....) and vote how they are told. I think liberal Christians need to do a better job of communicating all Christian values as they apply to politics.
Finally, many of those on the liberal side are rabidly anti-religion to the point that they become obnoxious to believers and probably alienate people who might normally be sympathetic to their views. My advice is exercise respect and tolerance to others views on faith.
Couse then you have partialy privatized/financed rehabilitation for people who choose to rehabilitate by the best program offered. People who go to jail are being filtered by who has no hope and is passive and people who aggresively want to be better and are financed to be religious.
Lets skip the fact that this is Christian project (to be objective). What if similar project would be crafted by Charles Manson type of religion? And perhaps even better question, how could be know that that kind of a guy is not in jail in this Christian, partly privatly founded programme?
If this programme is better just becouse of the additional money, then program is not equal to other programs and motivates inmates to "go Christian". That is not cons utional.
Why stop a program that works? Well I wouldn't stop the program, I would stop the crime. I would be a superhero...
Seriously, you just cannot say that someone respecting a cons ution should be called fanatic. That's all that I'm saying.
It is when that person goes out of their way to travel to States where they don't even reside (or vote) just to shut programs such as these down...
sorry...its in a dictionary as a "nonstandard blunder" and for being noted as an often improperly used word.
thanks for clearing that up amigo.
You're going to lecture me on grammar....
This coming from the guy who begins his sentences without capital letters and neglects the use of colons... No offense pf, but I really don't care what impression my 'chat' talk may leave behind with reference to my 'credibility'. I've got nothing to hide, to lose or to gain by trying to write like an English professor when clearly I'm not.... Besides, English is my 2nd language.
I take it your futile attempt to discredit my beliefs by trying to belittle my credibility speaks more about you than about me. Better luck next time.
look man.... i just get sick of people saying "irregardless" because its an idiotic word that people say when they really mean "regardless."You're going to lecture me on grammar....
This coming from the guy who begins his sentences without capital letters and neglects the use of colons...
nothing against you
Understood...
You know actually the Liberals are really frightening. They worship Mother Earth and
Trees. You know in the olden days they would be call Druids. Look at what they
have done to humanity.
They have put more people into slavery, while liberating them. Caused more pain than
the average bear. But they love everyone, except NECONS.
priceless analysis by xray. ing awesome, invoking druids and all that. its funny on levels that he dont even realize.
anyway, whether or not liberals are crazy or dangerous or whatever is not up for discussion here. i am not an apologist for all things liberal or something like you want me to be or like how you are with the conservative team.
Oh, I know you are an apologist for anything or anyone. You fail to take
a stand on much of anything. Well except, I keep an open mind and will look
at all sides of any issue. Except you don't. you don't do much of anything.
@ pussyface correcting Hegamboa while making mistakes like this
xray: although this is not the thread for debating the merits of liberalism, it is the appropraite place to argue that religious fanatics are not frightening. I encourage you to do so if thats how you feel.
Maybe you can wow us with something about how religious fanatics are not frightening, as long as they are Christian?
Hey you are the ones who keep bringing up how bad the religious folks are. Just
keep things in perspective. No one is allowed to be fanatics except Christians. Have
I got it right?
Now I am going to take care of some other stuff, will be back tomorrow. Sleep
well and enjoy your own thoughts.
xray: not standing for any one political party is not the same as not standing for anything.
I hold a unique mixture of "left" and "right" positions; as I have told you before, I believe in very limited government, a rule of law based on allowing consenting adults to make whatever choices they wish so long as they do not infrindge on others, etc.
You equate taking principaled, nonpartisan stands with taking no stands at all (?).
"Now I am going to take care of some other stuff, will be back tomorrow. Sleep
well and enjoy your own thoughts." XRAY
...since you wont be reading this till tomorrow as you go to bed at the same time as my 9 year old son:
Good morning XRAY! Mornin' sunshine! I just wanted to thank you for being an invaluable contributer to the SPURSTALK Political Forum. As someone who holds many conservative principals close to heart, I want to thank you for making the forum more enjoyable for everyone by being the stereotypical, uninformed, "that dumb conservative" guy.
Without your postings, most threads would grow stale instantly with rational, fair-minded debate. You keep us all consintently amused and are the worst ambassador for conservatism since Elizabeth Hasslebeck was named cohost of "The View."
If you were on TV talking politics, conservatives would complain (and rightfully so) that it was proof that "liberals" behind-the-scenes stacked the deck by only putting on the air conservatives who are clearly not intelligent.
Enjoy your eggs!
Hey, maybe you are right. That is passionate. But is not quite the same as screaming at your family: "I am a warrior of God!" She was just an activist who rightfully said this program should be shut down.
That is not that frightful.
I would be scared is she was like Clooney, who said that president of the NRA deserves any insult shouted at him. That is fanatical, but he is artistic or whatever.
So rather than make a positive difference in peoples' lives... we should get rid of programs that are proven to lower recidivism rates and hence America's crime rate, because the methods used don't conform with everyones beliefs. Pure gold. (This is not against you Zeleni - I'm speaking with regards to the Barry Lynns of this world)
Those people don't really care about the issue at hand, and frankly I don't know if they ever have. They just want to push their anti-faith-based agendas with complete disregard for the true beneficiaries of these programs... Did it ever occur to them to develop 'secular' programs of their own? Ohh, wait a second.... they have tried and failed... and that doesn't mean that said programs don't work... they're simply not as effective.
That's what irritating about the whole picture. That these people would rather live in a world with higher crime rates than live in a world with more 'Christians' -- so much for their hypocritical battlecry of 'tolerance'...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
