S.A.C.S. Individual Paper

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

--Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson believed in the idea of a wall of separation between church and state should be maintained.(Hester) This separation still sparks controversy in current American legislation. The idea that this wall be broken would leave the state favoring one religion over another. This, therefore, would violate the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While as evident as the outcome may appear, the idea of church and state working together still leads much debate in today's society.

An ongoing trail in Des Moines, Iowa holds witness to the debate. The Americans for Separation of Church and State are suing a faith-based rehab program on the basis of unjust treatment to non-members, religious employment discrimination, and most importantly the state aiding funds in a religious based program. (AU) The AU feels the InnerChange program should not receive federal money to promote their religious beliefs. This case arises many questions on the importance of keeping church and state separate, one being, "Can the government provide equal amounts of funds without leaving one religion behind?"

The InnerChange program began in 1997. The founder, Charles Colson, started the program after he was released from prison for involvement in the Watergate Scandal. InnerChange Freedom Initiative, now serving 220 inmates, operates in Iowa, Texas, Kansas, and Minnesota. InnerChange runs on a “24-hour per day Christ-Centered Bible based program.” (AU) As initiation into this program, inmates must be “saved” and must totally convert to Christianity.

Unjust treatment based on religious affiliation is dominating Newton Correctional Facility. Members of IFI are treated with higher honor than of a normal inmate. A wing formally used to house good behaved inmates is now being used for InnerChange participants. Members are also granted air conditioning and carpeted cells. They receive unlimited telephone calls to family as well as more visits per week. What might arise as a greater concern, inmates submitting to the fundamentalist Christian teachings of InnerChange, can both increase their chances of being paroled and move up the time at which they are eligible for parole. This leaves inmates of other religions and beliefs at a loss. Their ultimatum is either to convert totally against their beliefs to be treated equal or stick to there values and be left with unjust treatment throughout the rest of their sentence.

Being “born again” into Christianity is also an employment qualification for the InnerChange program. Prison Fellowship and IFI have a publicly announced policy of employing only Christians as staff members and only allowing Christians to serve as volunteers. In the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the State of Iowa was paying 40 to 50 % of the program’s cost. (AU v. Prison Fellowship Ministries) Part of this funding from the state is being used to pay for the salaries of Interchange’s employees. This would leave the state at fault for aiding in religious discrimination in employment.

The State of Iowa’s involvement with the InnerChange program has targeted them in aiding faith-based organizations. While some might not look at funding religious organizations as a bad thing, the negative outcomes are clear in the Newton Correctional Facility. The State of Iowa uses a state fund with tax money from Iowa residents to help fund the InnerChange program. Many residents are unknowledgeable of this, and are potentially funding a religious program they are not affiliated with.

While the AU continues to fight for state funds to be halted, President George Bush is on IFI’s side. He has been quoted praising the program. In July of 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill that gave its approval allowing religious-based charities and community service organizations to seek and spend federal funds while remaining exempt from state and local laws prohibiting discriminatory hiring practices(Hester).

Bush’s act arises serious questions such as “Who decides who’s worthy of the money and how much?” and “What controls will there be on how the money is used?”(Jackson) These questions tie in closely with Jefferson's wall. On one side, church lies with no affiliation of the state. This leaves the government on the other side. With these two separate, religion is not imposed by the state nor funded by it. There would little discrimination involving religion if this wall were as strong as Jefferson intended it to be. In reality, the wall is climbed often. This leaves a mess between religious and governmental leaders. The question whether church and state can coincide and be equal is often focused on. Cases have proven time and again that it is usual not equal. One might wonder, "Is the grass greener on the other side of the wall?" In an ideal America, keeping the church and state separate, that one should not be curious to know.