I've written about this before (GW and Faith-Based Initiatives), but apparently we have to talk about it again
In 2001, Joseph Hanas, a 23-year-old Michigan resident, pled guilty to a charge of marijuana possession. He was sentenced to "drug court", which usually means counseling, a deferred sentence, and possible dismissal of charges if the counseling is successfully completed. This sentencing strategy is supposed to be a great resource for non-violent offenders.
But here's the thing. Mr. Hanas was assigned to the Inner City Christian Outreach Residential Program. Part of the treatment plan was, it seems, to cure him of his Catholicism, which was referred to as witchcraft (among other things). He had to surrender his rosary and his missal, and in order to succesfully complete the program he had to proclaim his salvation at the altar. The alternative was prison. Moreover, his family was told that he had "given up his right to freedom of religion" when he entered the program.
Mr. Hanas asked to be transferred to a secular program. The judge denied the request, although he conceded that Mr. Hanas was not being allowed to practice his faith and even opined that the Outreach Center was a church rather than a treatment facility since there are no alcohol or substance abuse counselors on staff. Nonetheless, it was determined that Mr. Hanas did not successfully complete the program. He spent 3 months in jail, then went to a boot camp program. After THAT, he received legitimate drug counseling.
And all this in the name of improved social services by using faith-based groups to provide some services. It has long been true that high-integrity social services can be delivered by religious groups. There are Catholic hospitals and Lutheran social service agencies. The Salvation Army provides food banks and disaster services. The list goes on and on. Many of these organizations have been getting federal grant money to do their work for a long time, too. So in a way, faith-based initiatives are nothing new.
But requiring people to abandon one faith for another or go to prison, THAT'S new. Calling something social services when there are, in fact, no trained staff members, now THAT'S a problem. This new faith-based initiatives effort is different in that money is flowing much more freely towards conservative evangelical Christian groups. These groups are of course free to believe whatever they like, and people are free to choose that form of religious expression. But, when people are sentenced to participation, that ought to raise a few red flags.
And I know that it will go the other way, too. Just as people can be coerced to religious expression, they can be denied services based on their faith choices. These agencies could refuse services to Catholics or Jews or Muslims. They could refuse to hire gay people or non-Christians or women, for that matter. And they could get tax-payer money for those efforts. THAT should give us pause.
No comments:
Post a Comment