Today I participated in a blogger’s conference call graciously hosted by Joe Carter of the Family Research Council. The guests were Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley and Anthony Picarello of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. The discussion centered on an Iowa District Court’s decision finding Prison Fellowship’s Innerchange Initiative, an anti-recidivism program, unconstitutional.

I should note that I greatly admire Prison Fellowship and its Innerchange program. This is exactly the sort of thing the Chuch is supposed to do in the world. From what I know of the Beckett Fund, I admire their religious liberty work as well. I’m an ardent advocate of religious liberty. In this particular instance, however, it seems to me that Prison Fellowship’s strategy was misguided and that the arguments the Beckett Fund is making slice the salami pretty thin.

Early and Picarello highlighted the troublesome aspects of the Iowa court’s ruling: the court unnecessarily traipsed into a definition of “evangelical” Christianity based on the testimony of one expert witness (who isn’t an evangelical), and levied an absurdly large restitution award against IFI. I think they are correct about these aspects of the opinion.

Early and Picarello also argued that the court’s opinion could be read to eliminate any federal funding for the activities of any person whose personal convictions are fundamentally religious. I think this is a major stretch. I discussed the case at some length when it was first decided. In my view, Prison Fellowship was trying to have it both ways in this instance. On the one hand, they base their program on the belief that true and deep change only happens through acceptance of Christ; on the other, they argued in court that there are “secular” aspects of the program that are separable from these particularly religious and evangelical ones and therefore appropriately subject to federal funding.

It was nice to be able to have a lively exchange with Early and Picarello on the conference call (I hope I didn’t butt in too much). They are clearly both capable people. However, I don’t feel that they were able to answer my concerns in a satisfactory way. Picarello argued that the Iowa ruling could concievably extend to say, a schoolteacher who in a general way feels that teaching kids is a form of witness and ministry. Anything is possible, I suppose, but this seems highly unlikely, to say the least. The Iowa ruling deals with a specific program / ministry, the fundamental goal of which is to convert inmates to Christianity and encourage them in their Christian faith. That goal is implemented through explicity Christian evangelistic meetings and extensive Christian teaching. It isn’t just offering a “cup of cold water” or having a generally religious personal motivation for an otherwise routine activity like teaching high school English.

Early and Picarello also suggested that the Iowa ruling could apply not only to federally funded recidivism programs, but also to privately funded ones. This would indeed be a problem. I’m not sure I see how this is so, however. The court held that IFI was a “public actor,”and that “as providers of a state-funded treatment program, they are burdened with the same responsibilities of any state employee: to respect the civil rights of all persons, including the First Amendment’s prohibition on indoctrinating others in their form of religion.” (Opinion at 100, emphasis added).

I think the question here arises from the ancillary benefits provided to inmates who attend the program, and the court’s factual conclusion that there are no meaningful alternatives to IFI in that particular prison system. If prisoners get benefits such as early release, and there is no other non-religious alternative, a court might find an establishment clause problem. During the call, Picarello noted that the court simply got the facts wrong here; there were other meaningful alternatives. In any event, I’m having trouble seeing the more sweeping constitutional implications Picarello alludes to. This seems to me more like a factual question about this particular prison system, which the court may or may not have gotten right.

Thanks again to Joe Carter for setting up the call and to Mark Earley and Anthony Picarello for participating. As always, I welcome comments from folks with different perspectives. Am I getting this one wrong and overreacting to the “religious right” overtones?