Author Topic: How the courts view forced religious indoctrination  (Read 2520 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
How the courts view forced religious indoctrination
« on: August 29, 2004, 08:23:00 PM »
Detroit News, 08/27/04
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0 ... 255536.htm

Friday, August 27, 2004


Religious coercion in Michigan case shows government should be wary of faith-based programs


By Wendy Wagenheim

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
 

In a nation that cherishes religious freedom, how is it that a judge permitted blatant religious coercion, endorsing one religion over another and discouraging one religion? That?s what happened when Joe Hanas, a young man from Genesee County, was arrested for a nonviolent drug offense.

As part of a progressive court program, Hanas had a chance to receive drug rehabilitation rather than go to jail. There was, unfortunately, one major problem ? Joe Hanas is a practicing Catholic, and the program was operated by Pentecostals. Though the judge?s intent may not have been for Hanas to convert to the Pentecostal faith, his test for Hanas? successful completion of the ?drug court? program hinged on just that.

The coercion was extreme, and it was an elected judge who allowed it. Hanas? rosary, his Bible and his priest were all kept from him. Staff members, none of them certified or trained drug counselors or therapists, told him that Catholicism is a form of ?witchcraft.? He was not only forbidden to follow his Catholic faith, but he was also tested on his learning of Pentecostal principles.

And, he was told, his rehabilitation would not be complete until he knelt at the altar and proclaimed himself ?saved.?

Hanas? only alternative was to request a transfer to another program where he would not be coerced into practicing a religious faith alien to his own. However, the judge viewed his early withdrawal from the program as an indication that Hanas was not committed to overcoming his substance abuse. The judge then took away the only opportunity Hanas had to receive affordable residential drug rehabilitation and a possible dismissal of the charges.

Programs like the one Hanas found himself in are common. In fact, these are the kind of programs that President Bush funded when he was governor of Texas; drug addiction is treated as a sin and Bible study is provided as treatment.

It is also the kind of program that Bush wants to fund under his faith-based initiatives, in which religious indoctrination is dressed up to look like social welfare.

Advocates of government-sponsored and government-funded religion say faith-based programs are constitutionally permissible as long as participation in the program is voluntary, and there is a secular alternative.

But Joe Hanas was never given a secular alternative. His choice was to either enroll in the Pentecostal program or go to jail. He wanted help and he needed rehabilitation services, but his constitutional right not to surrender his Catholic beliefs resulted in his being sentenced to boot camp and jail.

What?s disturbing about Hanas? case is that he was placed in such a program by a court order, and that ultimately it was his commitment to his religious beliefs that led to the jail sentence.

While faith-based programs may be well-motivated and helpful for some, it is not appropriate for the government to fund them or coerce people to participate in them. There is no doubt that religiously affiliated programs can do a world of good. The work of such agencies as Catholic Family Services, Lutheran Refugee Resettlement and Jewish Vocational Services, which are performed under government contracts, have provided much-needed services to thousands of people over the years.

When these groups accept a government contract to deliver services to the community, they agree to serve the entire community and its needs. They agree to provide services without discriminating over whom they hire and serve. And they don?t require participation in religious devotional exercises as a condition of the services they are supposed to give.

Drug courts in Michigan are widely viewed as creative, cost-effective alternatives to incarceration. Because of limited state money for drug rehabilitation, programs are often operated by faith-based organizations. And as more and more drug courts are created, rehabilitation programs will be used more frequently.

The likelihood that there may be other cases like Joe Hanas? is one reason why the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has appealed this case to the Michigan Supreme Court. It is crucial that the constitutional boundaries be clearly defined. Any entanglement between government and religion is harmful to both government and religion, not to mention Joe Hanas.

Wendy Wagenheim is the communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. Send letters to letters@detnews.com.



If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit  people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?  Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?

--Frederic Bastiat -- 1801-1850

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline GregFL

  • Posts: 2841
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How the courts view forced religious indoctrination
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2004, 09:25:00 PM »
Yahoo! A small victory against the totalitarian religious right wing in this nation...


Do tell, what program was the boy forced to declare his religion as Witchcraft?

If there ever was an argument against "faith based initiatives", here it is.

Religious and secular people alike should run from this like it is on fire.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline BuzzKill

  • Posts: 1815
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How the courts view forced religious indoctrination
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2004, 10:56:00 AM »
I am one of those troublesome fundamentalist/evangelicals; And I am furious that such a thing as this ever takes place. Not only is it a gross violation of one's civil rights;and Freedom of religion; but it is counter productive to a soul's salvation!
(Second Timothy, 2 vs 23)

I have no problem with faith based services; but  faith based matters needs to be separate and apart from the service provided. This can be done and done well. Bridges for Peace is a good example. WaySide Christian mission, is another. Sadly, this kind thing will squash a lot of good that could be accomplished.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
How the courts view forced religious indoctrination
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2004, 11:45:00 AM »
I don't know which place the guy was in. In Texas, it could be any of a number of 'ministries'. Actually, it sounds a lot like TeenChallenge.

This story is making the rounds on drug policy reform lists and forums. And I'm happy to say that lots of our material is coming up in the ensuing discussion. Finally, people who were never in a Program are beginning to connect the dots and investigate the industry.

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
--Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, sentenced to death at Nuremberg

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
How the courts view forced religious indoctrination
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2004, 06:26:00 PM »
:grin:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."