Elusive, the burbs (11/2/2009 2:48:00 AM)

I don't see anything wrong with it as long it's voluntary except the part where they say they will only hire people of like faith. Isn't that discimination?

Alan Shore, (11/2/2009 5:58:57 AM)

Is this just for crooked pastors AND crooked priests?

florence, tulsa (11/2/2009 7:16:44 AM)

Shore: Faith based programs have generally gone to great effort to keep Roman Catholic priests, Rabbis and others away from their programs, and under Bush II do so with great sucess, they a la Colson bunch wouldn't allow Catholics to have Catholic bibles. So their "faith" only extends to what's good for the founders and their numbers are very suspect. Lots of stories out there about these folks, read carefully and legislators should be very careful---but they won't.

007, Tulsa (11/2/2009 8:13:27 AM)

What do they do? beat the inmates over the head with the bible?

my view, Sand Springs (11/2/2009 8:26:56 AM)

Give me a break this concept will not work and it won't be constitutional. But the column does give the christian basher a forum.

DBJohn, Tulsa (11/2/2009 9:00:32 AM)

I foresee the ACLU having a hay day with this.

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/2/2009 9:36:14 AM)

How about criminal based ministries? Wait, we alraedy have a large number of those.

Daven, Tulsa (11/2/2009 9:37:10 AM)

I bet this would only fly for Christian or Catholic faiths. Lets try a Muslim prison and see how that goes. Or how about a Athest prison only. If you dont see a problem with this Christian only prison then you have no idea what freedom of religion is.

nucleardad, Tulsa (11/2/2009 9:43:31 AM)

More Christian Taliban training sites? Somebody didn't like Sunday School.

Mar, Tulsa (11/2/2009 10:12:37 AM)

Well, considering regular prisons have not been successful in handling convicts and when the convicts leave prison the majority commit more crimes and end up back in prison. I say give it a try, they couldn't do much worse.

nucleardad, I understand "freedom" very much, thank you. But so far nothing else has worked for the prison systems.

The comment about the ACLU is right. They will be on that like stink on a skunk.

gadfly, Broken Arrow (11/2/2009 11:04:28 AM)

Mar -- when you suggest that ACLU is somehow "bad for America" -- you are, in fact, stating that there is something in the US Constitution that you don't like. So, next time, don't misuse the ACLU -- just tell us what's wrong with our Constitution.

forkandknife, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:05:05 AM)

I am really not understanding the whole "terms" behind this? Do it matter if you are a christian or not to work in a prison? How do you know for sure some is a christian? I mean with our economy. I am pretty sure that if someone needed a job that bad, they would do or say anything to get one.

Am I wrong in saying this?

Basil, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:24:26 AM)

"Lets try a Muslim prison and see how that goes."
Judge each group by the fruit it produces. While no one can deny there are those who do things in the name of Christ who show sad hypocrisy, Christian programs in prisons have shown a great success in rehabilitating many prisoners, compared to other non-religious and non-Christian groups.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/2/2009 11:27:25 AM)

My daughter works for ODOC in close proximity to prisoners. There are times when she has to stay late because meals are held up for Muslims to have prayer and such. The system already comports itself to minority religions. They also already have chapel for Christians. I agree with the reasoned persons that think this will not pass muster on the hiring part. Unless it is privately owned and only overseen by ODOC. Still it will probably be met with strong opposition.

etroadrunner, Bixby (11/2/2009 11:27:34 AM)

Excuse me but, if the state hires a vendor (faith-based prison) who discriminates in their hiring practices based on religion, doesn’t the state risk loosing federal funding? Renee Watkins should have known and pointed that out. If, she is in fact employed by the Department of Corrections.

JAO, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:28:50 AM)

Why should only "born again" Christians be given special treatment? How about other prisoners, particularly those nearing release back into society? This is discriminatory treatment and the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Interfaith Alliance, and others need to get this stopped, assuming taxpayer funds will be used.

Q2, (11/2/2009 11:29:36 AM)

Actually, this has been tried before. It was called the Inquisition. After all, you have a "captive" audience. Let's force everyone to see it our way. It also appears that you're saying "if you're not one of us, don't bother applying for a job." Last I checked, being or becoming Christian has to come from one's own heart. Seems like you want to put someone in solitary confinement if they don't pray your way.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/2/2009 11:36:31 AM)

etroadrunner-short answer-yes

Basil, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:43:43 AM)

" . . . don't misuse the ACLU -- just tell us what's wrong with our Constitution."
If you're government educated, you may have a censored knowledge of American history, which excludes any religious statements made by our founders and political leaders, but let me assure you religious expression in public life was intended to be protected by the Constitution of the United States, not banned. It's only with the past 40 years that we've seen a substancial errosion of our Constitutional right to express our faith in government.

The ACLU has re-interpretted the Constitution and have corrupted the original understanding of the free-exercise of religion and establishment of religion clauses..

Basil, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:51:10 AM)

Sorry for all the typos.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/2/2009 11:53:10 AM)

Basil-that's a-ok, I do it all the time. I only correct myself when I leave out words.LOL

tbgalileo, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:54:18 AM)

"Christian programs in prisons have shown a great success in rehabilitating many prisoners"

As a former parole officer with DOC, I can definitely affirm that this statement is bs. The "success" of christian ministries is usually measured in how religious the person appears to be, not whether or not they are truly rehabilitated in society. I've seen far too many common crack-heads who one minute are praising jesus and the next hitting the pipe and stealing to get their next rock.

cowboyweasel, Tulsa, OK (11/2/2009 11:57:56 AM)

Wow my hometown made the news and it is kind of good news. I say if it saves the town then I'm for it. If you look up the population and the ADM at Tulsa area schools's fav website (OSSAA's website) you will notice that Wakita is near the bottom and if they had some sports they would play 8-man football. The school is in danger of not having enough people to make it worthwhile to keep it open. Once the school leaves the town will dwindle and will probably die off. If this gives the town a much needed population influx then maybe it will save the town.

etroadrunner, Bixby (11/2/2009 11:58:11 AM)

Bill Sherman - You need to change the heading to read "The privately run lockup would have only Born Again Christians on its staff." That is clearly pointed out in the body of your article and would exclude the vast majority of Christians who live in this country from being hired by this faith-based prison.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/2/2009 12:01:50 PM)

Cowboyweasel- short of a seqeual to the movie "Twister", I think it may be awhile if this doesn't happen.

Daven, Tulsa (11/2/2009 12:04:24 PM)

Basil, what religion was Timothy McVeigh? All religions have their 'bad apples'. Some more then others. How is this success measured? Repeat offenders or how long they stay brainwashed under a certain religion?

Now, I am all for religious programs if they can keep people to obey the laws and lead a productive life. But my point is that this prison is unconstitutional due to the fact that we could never have a Muslim or Atheist Prison only because of the ignorance of people in this country.

The A Team, (11/2/2009 12:11:13 PM)

If it were a truly Christian private prison it would be a non profit, instead of for profit prison. I call B.S.

Basil, Tulsa (11/2/2009 12:12:18 PM)

tbgalileo,

There's no question that there are plenty of inmates who join Christian groups in the prisons to have some variety in their day or who think it'll help their chances at early release, but that's only a portion of the picture. We all know many convicts "find Jesus" in prison, and it's too bad this isn't always sincere.

It's an uphill battle to rehabilitate any convicts due to the many obstacles that stand in their way when they are released, so success may not even mean that 50% go on to remain clean on the outside. Success is judged by if a higher precentage remain clean that those who receive other non-religious or other religious rehab programs.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/2/2009 1:01:07 PM)

Basil I don't know much about all the legalize on this subject. I do have an experience in what people "look" like in incarceration. This is only because a friend of mine told me he and I were going to help a "minister"(former repeat offender who had fially got past his propensities) minister to inmates. But, who better to minister to an inmate than someone that has walked a mile or two?

This was a Christmas eve and a large county jail. Our job was to accompany him and distribute some candy, fruits and soda pop we prepared in the adjoining kitchen. I had not seen the inside of lockup before and those doors closing and stuff.

The inmates listened to him like little children, they came up to my cart to get thier treats and they were like little pups. Even the one or two in solitary confinement were subdued. This minister could tell us pretty close to who was getting it and who wasn't (the vast majority).

I won't get longwinded, the thing is, I figure that this guy, who really represents more like him (prison ministers), than any system could. These guys are the best way to protlesize to prisioners. Why upset the cart?

lucky girl, mine (11/2/2009 1:15:29 PM)

So is it gonna be like the Church of Christ where they drill into you how evil you are and then guilt you in to changing your life? I'm sorry, but this might not work

SS_Hippy, Tulsa (11/2/2009 1:15:31 PM)

don't care what kind i don't like the idea of private prisons.

Grand Old Partier, Owasso (11/2/2009 1:50:34 PM)

I don't think some of you actually read the article. You saw the word "Christian" and you immediately get judgmental.

The story said it was non-profit and private. It's for prisoners who apparently will be released soon, probably just before a halfway house. Wouldn't it be advantageous to open up 310 more beds in government-run prisons to handle more prisoners?

true2form, Grand Lake (11/2/2009 1:55:09 PM)

Hmmmm...Jails For Jesus.....how nice!

RJMosk, Tulsa (11/2/2009 2:16:01 PM)

If ANY taxpayer funds are used for ANY reason whatsoever, this facility cannot be a Christian
prison, used to proselytize prisoners. How convenient to overlook the constitution..separtion of religion and govt. familarly known as, 'church-state' issues.

dslat, Tulsa (11/2/2009 2:18:39 PM)

"A bond underwriting company said that if a government jurisdiction will commit to sending 310 inmates at a cost of $42.80 a day, bond sales can begin, and the project can proceed." Wow! per day i don't even spend this much a day to live. I actually just did the math, I save 84 dollars a month, and this includes a car with insurance and gas, food, living, bad habits (cigs and alcohol) and my freedom! this is ridiculous, maybe something a little more legitimate could save the city.

dslat, Tulsa (11/2/2009 2:30:02 PM)

"Ninety-eight percent of offenders are going to get out of prison. What kind of offender do you want living next door?" I would prefer someone rehabilitated, that knew and understood right from wrong, who understood consequences. Not someone who thought well i can do what i want and just get saved,then god will love and forgive me and I won't go to hell.

Karl, Tulsa (11/2/2009 3:41:31 PM)

I'm sorry to stray from the immediate topic - prisons, but Basil said: " let me assure you ".
First of all, what value is there in your assurance? What credentials do you have to offer that makes you an expert in this field?

He continued: "religious expression in public life was intended to be protected by the Constitution of the United States"

It depends on what you mean by "public life". If by "public life", you mean that people may stand on a street corner and preach, or write letters to the editor in favor of religion, or purchase time on radio and/or tv to make a religious statement, you are correct. The Constitution protects all that. However, if you try to include the government as part of your "public life", you are wrong. The Constitution specifically forbids the government from any involvement with religion.

He also said: " It's only with the past 40 years...".
Well, close. It has actually been about 170 years since the first church-state case in 1838. But the explosion of such cases has taken place in the last 60 years - since Everson v Board of Education in 1947. And there have been 40 or 50 cases since then.

He continued that sentence with: " that we've seen a substancial errosion of our Constitutional right to express our faith in government." No, what we've seen is an ever increasing attempt by the fundamentalist Christians to try to convert this Country into a theocracy by injecting their particular religious beliefs onto everyone else. And this is because of people like you who claim to be experts on the subject of the founders' intentions but actually have no idea what the intended.

continued below

Karl, Tulsa (11/2/2009 3:43:27 PM)

continued from above

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus , the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular.
The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

Excerpts from A "Cockeyed Contention" by Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry -- Metro New York:
"In fact - and it is a little-known fact today -devout evangelical Christians were among the strongest supporters of the separation between church and state that took shape in the formative years of the republic. In 1784, the revolutionary firebrand Patrick Henry introduced a bill in the Virginia General Assembly that would have assessed taxes on all citizens for the support of "teachers of the Christian religion." That proposal was defeated by a now-unlikely but then-familiar coalition of dissident evangelicals and Enlightenment rationalists, led by James Madison. The rationalists feared religious interference with government and the religious minorities feared government interference with religion."

vger1970, tulsa (11/2/2009 3:54:13 PM)

basil , you've most definetly got that statement wrong. The separation of church and state is intended to prevent religious organizations from oppressing others through government. Throughtout human history, from one side of thr globe to the other , religious zealots have oppressed , dicriminated, killed , controlled others !! This is a major step backwards. Everyone has a right to believe as the wish , Please just try to force it down my throat

vger1970, tulsa (11/2/2009 4:05:12 PM)

oops.. I meant "Please just DON'T try to force it down my throat"

The A Team, (11/2/2009 4:36:30 PM)

This is just another way for ecclesiastical pimps to line their pockets in the name of religion.

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/2/2009 4:41:02 PM)

LOLOLOL "only Christians can work there". Oh really. Well since they would be getting state funds that would sorta violate separation of church and state now wouldn't it?

Ever seen a person desperate for work in a bad economy? Suppose someone might lie and say they were a Christian to get hired? Suppose they did a great job and got fired for "not living up to the Christian standards of the Warden".

Wanna bet on the outcome of that lawsuit?
LOLOLOLOL

No wonder Oklahoma was rated as the second dumbest state in America. The only wonder is how it stayed out of last.

truth fairy, (11/2/2009 5:02:31 PM)

A "Christian" private prison funded with $42 million in public bond money, would still have to be reinmbursed that $42.80 a day by the state, which violates state constitution. I read an interesting opinion on mainstream baptist blogspot, suggesting that an all-christian prison needs to be owned and operated at all christian expense. Not only does this proposal appear to violate state constitution, I can't imagine how an ex-con would be allowed in any ownership or operation of a prison.
Then there's the issue of non-profit status, which would exempt any levy of taxes on the prison, it's supplies, land, or services. And how about the goods manufactured there? Without paying taxes or having to meet any wage standards, these goods can be sold at prices that undercut any existing domestic manufacturer.
What I see here, is a backdoor attempt to profit on our state's poor and undereducated, and more motivation to encourage that poverty, and harsh sentencing for non-violent drug offenses, as well.
Church-run prisons? Like the Inquisition, Iran, the Taliban, or any other theocracy?
Not my idea of anything remotely "American".

staggerwing, tulsa (11/2/2009 5:10:38 PM)

Q: Why do so called / self proclaiming Christians keep coming up with these cockamamie ideas?
A: When the ludicrous proposal gets shot down by those who are sane (not necessarily meant to include the Oklahoma legislature) the hypochristians can use the event to stir the Christian Persecution Myth (CPM) pot while simultaneously leaping in the air and gyrating wildly shouting that the liberals, Democrats, elitist, Jesus haters are taking away our liberties to express our religious beliefs.
That is as clear as I can make it.

scooter2, (11/2/2009 5:41:11 PM)

Wonderful plan as long as they don't let the violent ones in with them. This should be for those who are truly wanting a change and it will also provide a safer inviorment for them. That way they are not in harms way of the really bad ones that have no plans to change at all. Jesus died for all, not just a few elite. He came for everyone. The ones no one cares much for, are also those Jesus usually cares the Most for.

scooter2, (11/2/2009 5:44:43 PM)

Jesus usually cares the most for those people care for the least.

Skeptic, Tulsa (11/2/2009 6:18:43 PM)

Faith based prison? What next, a faith based military? Gives new meaning to "Onward Christian Soldier"! How about a faith based Air Force, jets for Jesus?

I attended ORU, a faith based university. Their faith based leaders almost caused it's demise until a private citizen donated $72 million to resurrect it.

Leave the "faith" for the prison ministers. Taxpayers should not be asked to endorse any religious dogma.

Basil, Tulsa (11/2/2009 7:00:21 PM)

"The Constitution specifically forbids the government from any involvement with religion."


Karl,

You need to re-read the U.S. Constitution, because it says no such thing. There is no mention of any separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution, only that the government will not directly establish any official state religion, to avoid the religious controversies that had plagued Europe, between the corrupted Roman Catholic faith and protestants, and that the government will make no laws restricting the free exercise of religion, which in practice had also protected expressions within government entities, as long as those practicing other religions were not restricted from doing so, and no single denomination or Church was declared to be the official Church of the people.

Our first supreme court chief justice, John Jay, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Noah Webster said, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Our public school children used to begin their day with Christian prayers up until the 1960s, so this never seen as a violation of church and state, as it had originally been defined.

If you have been publicly educated, you've been effectively brain-washed, because everything you've been presented from the 1960s to the present has been carefully censored to exclude all religious content, which is abundant if you go back to the original writings and speeches of our founders. You must go beyond the impressions you received in school to see a more accurate balanced picture of our nations heritage.

Newt Gingrich and his wife recently published a couple books and videos highlighting some of the missing religious history of our nation for students who've been duped to believing the lie of a staunching secular past. Don't remain ignorant of the truth about what the Constitution actually taught and how it was practiced from the beginning. It protected us from an official Christian Church or denomination, for clear reasons, but it was never meant to be used to remove all expression of faith in Christ from our laws and public institutions.

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (11/2/2009 7:06:41 PM)

First, providing public funds to a faith based organization does not, in itself make it illegal. There are a number of States that have “Charitable choice” statutes that allow public entities to contract with religious based groups. Further, on a federal level, the Personal responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act contains provisions that allow faith-based organizations to compete for public funding to provide social services under the TANF program on the same terms as any other provider without having to alter their religious character. Another example are the “Charitable Choice” provisions that were enacted by Congress in regard to certain programs funded by the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment grant. Arizona passed the Charitable Choice Bill that prohibits governing bodies from discriminating against religious organizations when contracting for goods and services.


Charitable Choice provisions generally protect religious contractors from being required to remove religious symbols and religious organization can receive aid and retain their exemption from the anti-religious discrimination provision of the employment discrimination laws.


So through existing laws, it could be possible for the group to receive government funds through contracts, but also still retain the ability to hire only Christians.


The flip side of the Charitable Choice provisions is that the RECIPIENTS of the service must be given an alternative choice if they object to the religious nature of the organization providing the services. This is probably why the group specifically states that the prisoners would have to volunteer for the program and would not be required to read the Bible or attend church services. One thing that the articles does say however, is that the prisoners would have to agree to the curriculum which is faith based. This could cause an issue, but if the prisoners are volunteering to go to the prison, that may overcome this problem.


Sources:
azleague dot org “New Laws Passed by 1999 Legislature
“Charitable Choice: The Law As It Is and May Be” by Marc Stern
“State and Local Contracting for Social Services Under Charitable Choice” Aug 2005

okie ridgerunner, Small Country Town State Line (11/2/2009 7:32:59 PM)

If calif if there prisons are still like they was years ago they had what they called a parole school where the convicts stayed the last month or two to learn how to live around normal people again and how to eat with street people and how to dress and act on the outside away from prison.and the guards were not the same as the ones they were use to and did not act in the same way.
Not saying it helped most of them very much but it did not make them any worse.
sounds kind of like what the christian prison would be like. i dont see where it could hurt.they dont have to go if they dont want to. and there is a chance it could help a few.

okie ridgerunner, Small Country Town State Line (11/2/2009 7:38:26 PM)

Every thing else in the okla prison system has been tried. why not try this.nothing else seems to be working.we know people do not like change that is not there way of thinking.but sometimes change is what is needed.if the old way is not working, try a new way.

truth fairy, (11/2/2009 8:01:45 PM)

The expansion of the "Charitable Choice Act" by Bush was introduced by Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts, which would be the legislature that might allow this "private faith based prison". This was a project of interest of G.W. Bush, since '96, when he was still governor. Both G.W. and Jeb Bush have ties to Wackenhut-GEO Group, and a very profitable private prison corporation. Dick Cheney and Albert Gonzales also are tied with this company through Vanguard Investment Group.
Geo managed the Guantanamo political prison and migrant prisons in England and in the U.S. southwest, and four in Oklahoma.
This is at least Bill Robinson's fourth try to sell this unpresidented "concept".

Jester1969, Broken Arrow (11/2/2009 8:28:34 PM)

Truth,


One thing I wasn't able to find is whether there is any case law on this subject. I don't think that the US Supreme Court has addressed something like this yet.

effing hickster, (11/2/2009 8:46:45 PM)

scooter2: Wonderful plan as long as they don't let the violent ones in with them..

Are you freakin kidding me?
What better ones to be there.
Most of the violent inmates will be getting out someday.

WhoseLeft, Tulsa (11/2/2009 9:05:21 PM)

The town has a population of 380 and the prison will have more than 600 beds.

The town will have to pass bonds to build it, but it will be privately owned.

The founder Bill Robinson is an ex-convict.

If there are not enough Ok convicts to make it efficient, they will import convicts from other states.

Private prisons can be a problem--for sure. Stories of prisoner's denied health care, judges on the take sentencing way beyond what would be considered standard.

But for this little town, sounds like it could be the only game in town. Sad times.

Skeptic, Tulsa (11/2/2009 9:09:56 PM)

Good post truth fairy. Faith based is another feel good front phrase that means "we're gonna screw you, in Jesus name." As you pointed out tf, someone behind it is profiting and the faith based designation will insure support from those who will ask the least questions.

J C OK, Tulsa County (11/2/2009 9:24:19 PM)

WHAT A BUNCH OF NEGATIVE POSTS........If you haven't tried it don't knock it.

scooter2, (11/2/2009 9:41:49 PM)

Violent ones shouldn't be let out period. Most of them need more than this. They need delievered. I am talking about the very violent. None of these men who are trying to do better should be put with others who could possiably kill them before they get out. How would you like to be put with a murderer??? I say keep the better ones from the ones that can't be rehabilitated. Not everyone will be you know.

scooter2, (11/2/2009 9:43:21 PM)

Sadly theres alot of killers with NO REMORSE and they will never be changed.

aint missbehavin, .. (11/2/2009 9:46:59 PM)

Looks like the dew drop in has a new name,christian acedemy.If ya couldnt find God any where Im sure hes here in a place such as this,where lost souls are ramped.

effing hickster, (11/2/2009 10:36:57 PM)

scooter2
When you can tell the violent from the very violent, let me know ok?

truth fairy, (11/3/2009 12:22:58 AM)

jester1969, I've found faith-based programs that proved to be unconstitutional by their favorable treatment to inmates of a particular faith. The main issues here seem to be the sticky convolution
of a non-profit/bond funded private prison that sells products to retailers that are made by inmates, and are the responsibility of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Also, if this program was really superior, then it would be discriminatory against non-protestants that would not be eligible for it.
The same prison offer was withdrawn by Correctional Concepts, for Wilson, OK, last spring. I read this in an associated contents article, that included Bill Robinson's chilling comments towards the community's unwillingness to unconditionally submit to his demands. If this prison has tax-free status, it not only would not be contributing to the town financially, it would be cost burden for public services, as well as reducing real estate values and appeal to other tax paying industries.

remarkable, (11/3/2009 12:34:28 AM)

I am sooooooo for it... if they had faithbased prisons to begin with, we would have less crime, increase in our economy and lots of lives being saved from harms way. It is the government that is now seeing the light..

The A Team, (11/3/2009 12:38:00 AM)

Once again, this is just another way for ecclesiastical pimps, who really just worship the almighty dollar, to line their pockets in the name of religion. They are snake oil salesmen slinging the opiate of the masses.

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:49:14 AM)

Basil: I see that you've completely ignored what I wrote before - that the Constitution was deliberately written to create a secular government. What John Jay, Noah Webster, and, especially, Newt Gingrich said is irrelevant. they did not participate in the writing of the document.
On the other hand people who did participate in the writing of the Constitution said:

"Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends; the design of one being to promote our temporal Happiness; the design of the other to procure the Favour of God, and thereby the Salvation of our Souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature."
John Dickinson, writing over the signature, “A.B” Pennsylvania Journal, May 12, 1768.
--------------------------
Religion can only be directed by conscience and reason; government has no role to play with respect to religion; permitting the majority sole rule can harm minorities.
Civil magistrates (the state) is incompetent to judge religious truth; religion is an improper engine of state policy.
Good government does not need assistance from an established religion
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments 1785

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:50:30 AM)

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. ... It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788
---------------------------
Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.
-James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789)
-------------------------------
In 1797 there was no misunderstanding when President John Adams signed a treaty --read and ratified by the U.S. Senate (in the English language)-- with Tripoli which in Article 11 declares: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:51:32 AM)

." I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, ... But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. ... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Rev. Samuel Miller Jan. 23, 1808
--------------------------------------
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
"We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808).

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:52:26 AM)

In a letter to Benjamin Rush dated June 12, 1812, John Adams wrote:
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion"
----------------------------

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
---------------------------

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
---------------------------------
Rev. Doctor Wilson, in an 1831 sermon protested that it almost seemed as though God had been deliberately excluded from the origins of the new government: "... the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it ... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory."

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:53:25 AM)

You said: "You need to re-read the U.S. Constitution, because it says no such thing. There is no mention of any separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution"
Of course it's true that the actual phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution. But then neither are the phrases "separation of powers" or "checks and balances", yet no one would argue that the concepts are not there, embodied in numerous specific provisions. Just as the founders used those phrases to describe the intent of the constitutional provisions for power to be divided between three branches of government, they also used the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the intent of the religion clauses of the first amendment. When the courts go about applying constitutional law, one of the primary ways they do it is to look for the "legislative intent" - the purpose that those who wrote the law had in mind, the goal they wanted to accomplish. When the men who wrote it say in several places, as they did, that the goal of the religion clauses of the first amendment was to erect a wall of separation between church and state, that is about as authoritative as it gets when you're trying to determine legislative intent.
So, from where does this phrase originate? Most people know about Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is the first place in which it appears in a writing by one of the founders. One of the most commonly used arguments by the religious right is that Jefferson intended the wall to be "one directional" - that it was intended only to protect the church from the intrusions of the state. But this is absolutely false. The Danbury Baptists had written Jefferson a letter congratulating him on his election to the presidency and to ask for his assistance in getting rid of the official church establishment in Connecticutt. Connecticutt had an official religion of Congregationalism and all citizens in that state were required to pay a tax that supported the church. Thus, the issue at hand was not a violation of free exercise, but a violation of the ban on establishments (though technically it was neither, since the first amendment only applied to federal laws, not state laws - this was changed with the passage of the 14th amendment). Jefferson replied: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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 & State."

Karl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 12:54:08 AM)

It is a metaphor. You do know what a metaphor is, don't you? After all you didn't attend a public school.

By the way what kind of school did you attend?

gba, (11/3/2009 3:45:02 AM)

i do gues it,ld be alllright ifn they dont get one of em t.v. preachers runnin it
specilly one of em with the big hare

Miss Smart A., (11/3/2009 6:59:18 AM)

built with bond money?? it should be able to turn a profit if someone elses money is used. only christians on staff? didn't they leave out the white and male part? if your gonna discriminate, go all the way.

Basil, Tulsa (11/3/2009 7:45:07 AM)

Karl,

Many more quotes can be produced refuting your quotes, but this may not be the place to fully play out this debate. What we must examine is how faith was practiced within government to better understand the proper relationship that can, and has always existed.

I do not necessarily agree with the spiritual position of many of those who founded our nation, as an Orthodox Christian, but I cannot refute the deep contribution faith has played in the foundation of our nation.

For example:

John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" "Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" --1837, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Patrick Henry said, "It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” --Speech to the House of Burgesses, May 1765

Article 22 of the Constition of Delarware in 1776 required all public officials give the following oath when taking public office: "I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." This wasn't seen as a conflict between proper religious expression in public life.

The problem is how the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation have started interpretting the establishment clause. It was meant to prevent an official Christian Church of America denomination, not to prevent Christian expression and education in public institutions. There is no historic precedent for interpetting it that way, prior to 1960.

staggerwing, tulsa (11/3/2009 8:28:31 AM)

I have seen no credible evidence that mixing religion/superstition and government would have any benefit to either.
Please let me know if you have some evidence.

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/3/2009 8:33:49 AM)

Jesus said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto my father that which is his".

That's clear enough for me. Separation of church and state.

mr.peabody, country side oklahoma (11/3/2009 8:53:52 AM)

dusty- you nailed it-in a nutshell.

Pizzagirl, Tulsa (11/3/2009 9:42:34 AM)

If they want an all Christian prison I'm for it- if it's on church owned lands, and paid for by the church. I don't want to pay for what I consider an indoctorination(sp) center similar to a Scientology center, except it's state sanctioned.
But it's okay as long as it's not Muslim. ;p

moon, shine (11/3/2009 10:11:19 AM)

Nothing like a stint behind bars to restore one's faith in God.

Mel76, (11/3/2009 12:18:36 PM)

Many of you obviously do not know what it means to be a Christian. Just because someone says they love God/Jesus does not automatically qualify him/her to bear the name "Christian." True Christianity is about having a changed mind and lifestyle, not just a statement of faith. How many times do people say they are one way and their actions express something completely different, which in definition is "hypocrisy." I am all for a Christian prison; however, I understand that everyone who says Lord Lord is not going to enter the Kingdom. Before we criticize or speculate we need to actually see the results. I get so irritated when people think they can judge all Christians by the mistakes many have made, who in fact, were not "real" Christians. Unless you have met and interacted with every Christian you cannot make ignorant claims regarding that person's sincerity. If the people behind this prison are not real Christians it will no less come to naught and all we can say is they weren't sincere. Stop judging whole groups over the failure of some. That's like hating all Blacks because you had a negative experience with a few. You don't know all Blacks in the world to make such an ignorant claim. The same is true of Christians and any other group of people we like to categorize.

Few Clothes, America (11/3/2009 3:59:09 PM)

"I will smite thee in the name of Jesus".

cowboyweasel, Tulsa, OK (11/3/2009 5:25:21 PM)

mr. peabody I'm afraid that you are right, Twister was a nice shot in the arm for Wakita but I don't Hollywood knows where Wakita is anymore.

WhoseLeft It would just about be THE game in town. Wakita's population used to double about every time they played a football or basketball game but since they dropped football and I think that they might co-op basketball with a neighboring school so I don't think that there are too many games in town any more.

Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/3/2009 8:21:22 PM)

Get private contractors out of the prison system. We don't need prisons for profit or proseltizing...period!!!

Bud Green, No (11/4/2009 10:22:50 AM)

staggerwing,

The evidence indicates that the less religious democracies who support evolution have less societal ills.

Bud Green, No (11/4/2009 10:23:46 AM)

Scientific analysis by Gregory Paul, based on statistical evidence.

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends."

Bud Green, No (11/4/2009 10:24:11 AM)

It is cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies based on statistical data.

moon, shine (11/4/2009 11:54:21 AM)

der...

moon, shine (11/4/2009 5:12:41 PM)

What a dumb idea.

Miketday, (11/5/2009 2:44:06 AM)

This appears to be Plunder and Lottery. Why? Well, for one, Christianity is an ill-measure. It would be one of THE most arbitrary thing that can be integrated into ANY penal system. Habeas corpus is the other reason. Because of 'budget cuts' prison could replace city and county jails, then what? Habeas corpus means 'show the body', right?

Miketday, (11/5/2009 2:46:04 AM)

This appears to be Plunder and Lottery. Why? Well, for one, Christianity is an ill-measure. It would be THE most arbitrary thing that can be integrated into ANY penal system. Habeas corpus is the other reason. Because of 'budget cuts' prison could replace city and county jails, then what? Habeas corpus means 'show the body', right?

Miketday, (11/5/2009 3:34:34 AM)

Habeas corpus is at issue here.

steffy, TinyTown (11/5/2009 7:16:43 AM)

Wow! I was going to write a little note expressing my dismay at yet another attempt by the "Christians" to take over everything, but you beat me to it:0) Thanks. You have restored my hope for the Sooner state.

AnaBannanna's, east of T town (11/5/2009 10:33:54 AM)

Great just what we need.... Evangelical nutcases converting the violent to their cause.. Brownshirts in the making if you ask me... Theocracy in the making lol ..

More I see the more I beginning to believe Gandhi's statement.. " I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

dustyoutlaw, Tulsa (11/5/2009 10:52:06 AM)

Let's recap.

Christians were responsible for Slavery in the USA.

Christians were responsible for trying to genocide the American Indian while 'converting' them.

Christians were responsible for the KKK and to this day all white supremacist groups claim Evangelical Christianity.

Christians were the last group to oppose giving women the vote.

Christians were the last group supporting Jim Crow laws to stop blacks from voting.

Christians were responsible for massacring Mormons, leading to them moving to Utah and in turn massacring Christians until such time as they joined hands and sang Kumbya.

Christians were responsible for the bombing of black churches and killing freedom riders.

Christians were responsible for bombing Abortion clinics, throwing acid in the faces of nurses and killing doctors who perform abortions.

Bush claims Christianity and went to war behind lies that got 5,000 of our kids killed and 25,000 maimed and tripled the deficit all for war profiteering for his financial backers.

Mel says "I get so irritated when people think they can judge all Christians by the mistakes many have made."

With the Christian track record in this country alone is it any wonder that people don't want alleged Christians running things?

You claim "those people" were not true Christians. I would agree. The problem is that you don't seem to have any "Christians" in America who has ever held power that are "true Christians" by your own definition.

I believe in a Creator. I do NOT believe in the Christian right wing and I don't believe you represent all Christians.

So you won't mind if I say a pox on a Christian prison. I don't relish the idea of your right wingers beating and brainwashing thugs into doing "the work of God".

Shades of the Templar's all over again.

moon, shine (11/5/2009 5:03:03 PM)

Well put, Dusty...These judgmentle stonethrowers scare the hell out of me.

Sanity, Broken Arrow (11/5/2009 11:23:34 PM)

Dusty Outlaw, Christianity was not responsible for the things you list. People were, and many who did these bad things were non-believers as well.

The man who wrote Amazing Grace was a slaver, buying slaves and bringing them to this country for sale. No doubt he was guilty of many atrocities in the process.

When he learned of Christian forgiveness, he changed. He bared his heart in that song.

Christians are human, they err; but they have a perfect standard to stive for. Their goal is righteousness, forgiveness, and love.

Atheists have done all of the things you list; and they are like a boat without a rudder, no direction.

Sanity, Broken Arrow (11/5/2009 11:41:18 PM)

I too, would put a pox on Christian prisons, but for a different reason than Dusty Outlaw.

All religions (including athiests) evangelize. This free speech should be guaranteed in prisons to both inmates and visitors.

No special group should get preferential favor to teach in prisons.

I would prefer that Christianity exclusively be taught in all places - just because it is what I believe. So would every other believer want their religion exclusively taught everywhere.

The ideal governments' roll is freedom of (not from) all religious and non-religious beliefs.

Mr. Brown, Kanagawa, Japan (11/6/2009 9:56:44 PM)

Who cares about rehabilitating career criminals, anyway? I say make their lives hell for their behavior, and nothing like Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, TD Jakes, and some old PTL reruns
would do just that. I'm talking over the loud speakers, 24 hours...OH my, I can just FEEL
the sanctification from here...

Few Clothes, America (11/13/2009 9:59:32 AM)

Exactly how many weeks are you planning to continue running this story TW? It's extremely stale.