Captives for Jesus
Wednesday July 30, 2003
Want to know what President George Bush has in mind for his faith-based programs? You need look no further than InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), praised by the administration as a paradigm for state-funded religious organizations. Created by Chuck Colson, this program is designed to provide 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week fundamentalist Christian curriculum for prison inmates.
Although it does offer things like computer training and mentoring, such features are only really open to those who participate in fundamentalist Christian indoctrination. As Reason magazine reports:
The IFI website is chock-full of promotional material and states repeatedly that "the application of biblical principles is not an agenda item—it is the agenda." Prison Fellowship president Mark Easley, who declined to comment for this story, has said that state monies are used only for "non-sectarian expenses." But it is not at all clear how a program with conversion as its stated aim can have non-sectarian expenses. If IFI's own materials are to be believed, any funds the program receives will support its self-proclaimed goal of Christian conversion.
The website states that prisoners should only apply if "willing to actively participate in a Christ-centered, biblically-based program." In its legal complaint against IFI, AU alleges that participants are actually evaluated on whether they are "quick to praise God" and "demonstrate a belief in Jesus Christ."
Now imagine that the same conditions and circumstances surround the distribution of welfare, government-funded job retraining, food stamps, medical services, and so on. Is that the sort of America that President George Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and other members of the administration want? Apparently. Is that the sort of America you want?
Read More:
Comments
Mr. Cline should consider writing that anti-Bush/anti-conservatism article that he’s always dreamed of writing.
Austin appears to be captive to his own ego (a fate worse that death itself).
I’ve written several articles critical of Bush and conservatism. Why, though, do you feel the need to write two different posts under different names. Do you think your opinions gain in credibility if multiple faux personalities repeat them?