Improper Pressure: Idaho Inmate Had To Accept Jail Or Jesus

[cleanhippie]

I’ve never served time behind bars, but I know that it must be no bowl of cherries.

Most people just want to get out. And when you’re locked up for a drug offense and offered the opportunity for early release if you’ll go to a treatment program, the deal must look pretty sweet.

But what if the “treatment” program is a fundamentalist Christian indoctrination session? And what if successful completion of the program hinges on your willingness to embrace that faith?

Idaho resident Janene Cowles found herself in just that situation in 2006. Convicted of a drug offense, Cowles was told she could serve a year in the Ada County Jail or attend a “discipleship/recovery” program at the Boise Rescue Mission. She chose the program.

Although not a Christian, Cowles knew the program was religious and thought she could get through it. But once she got there, it was just not a good fit. The program was heavily Pentecostal in nature. Cowles was expected to pray, sing hymns, lay hands on the afflicted and even take part in exorcisms to cast out demons. (She was even forced to attend National Day of Prayer activities at the state capitol.)

When Cowles complained she was kicked out – and sent back to jail.

--snip--

If the Rescue Mission were a purely privately funded operation with no ties to the state, I would agree. Staff there would have the right to combat addiction in any manner they see fit, including using prayer, anointing and even the casting out of demons.

But it’s obvious this facility has a relationship with the government. Courts are sending inmates there – and not offering non-religious alternatives. If you’re locked up behind bars in Ada County on a drug charge, your options are to become a Pentecostal Christian or continue to sit in your cell. That simply isn’t right.

Americans United filed a friend-the-court brief in this case last year. At that time, Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn remarked, “This is just plain wrong. When the courts and religious groups join forces to indoctrinate Americans in a particular faith, they have gone too far. The Constitution does not allow this kind of government-assisted religious coercion.”

http://blog.au.org/2011/09/21/improper-pressure-idaho-inmate-had-to-accept-jail-or-jesus/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


And as usual, Barry is right! Let look again at what he had to say: “This is just plain wrong. When the courts and religious groups join forces to indoctrinate Americans in a particular faith, they have gone too far. The Constitution does not allow this kind of government-assisted religious coercion.”


Who can argue against that?

[louis-t]

1. Completely unconstitutional.

Even our right-wing SC would agree.

[cleanhippie]

2. Agreed.

Seems like a no-brainer...

[roguevalley]

19. even Jesus would be against this

[dmallind]

3. Well obviously it's wrong, but how dumb was Ms. Cowles?

I could jabber in tongues and do the godbotherting act so convincingly they'd want to make me a pastor if it kept me out of jail, and I'd be more than happy to do so. And that's not me arrogantly pretending to be Olivier either. An actor too poor to be considered for soaps could do the same. Heck, Keanu Reeves could do the same. It's the siomplest act there is, requiring no more skill than pretending that a friend's newborn baby is cute or a boss's joke is funny. Something we've all seen a thousand times, when we are immersed in it, is not a second's trouble to fake.

[cleanhippie]

4. It would seem that she feels Constitutionality is more important.

And I applaud that.

[jberryhill]

5. Then jail time should be the only option available, yes?

Because if you can find a non-religious community service organization in rural Idaho, then I want you to help me find gold nuggets.

[cleanhippie]

17. In this case, yes.

Is it really so difficult for you to see the ACTUAL problem here?

[jberryhill]

18. Apparently, I am a very stupid evil person

So this makes me generally dense.

The problem would be if she had no choice in the matter.

What do you think normally happens when people are given the option of jail time or "community service"?

Many of them opt for "community service" through either religious or non-religious affiliated service organizations.

This came up in connection with one of the "OMG SHARIA LAW" scare stories a while back. A teenager who was given the option of jail time or community service chose to do his service hours with an charitable group affiliated with a mosque. That group reported back to the court that he had not fulfilled his hour commitment, so the kid went to jail. This was reported as "Mosque Sends Kid To Jail".

This person is an adult, and capable of making choices.

[cleanhippie]

20. I don't think that about you, but if you see yourself that way...

The problem here is the mixing of church and state. Thats it. If the state wants to offer a program whereby inmates can complete a "course" then be released early, I am all for that. But when the "course" is religious in nature (and in THIS case, very SPECIFICALLY evangelical and pentecostal christianity), the the state needs to provide an equivalent "course" for ALL religions, AND one that is specifically NOT religious. They failed to do that, hence it is 100% unconstitutional. End of story.


And that is the problem. Do you see it now?

On edit: And just WHAT does becoming a pentecostal christian have to do with rehabilitating a law-breaker? This implies that just being a christian (and in this case, a specific FLAVOR of christian) will make someone a "better" person. Do you think that is the case?

[jberryhill]

26. No, I do not think it makes anyone a better person

Had I been in that position, I would have chosen the jail time.

Simply concluding "it is 100% unconstitutional. End of story" is not much of an argument.

Is it also 100% unconstitutional for inmates to be allowed out of their cells to voluntarily attend religious services, while the other inmates remain in their cells?

Whether the state is engaged in promotion of religion has more to do with whether or not they allow all groups, religious or not, to offer some kind of rehab program. In other words, the doctrine of separation has more to do with who is or is not permitted to provide the programs.

If an adult of their own volition opts for a religious based one, I'm not seeing the compulsion in this.

[cleanhippie]

27. Perhaps you missed the front end of my statement.

It ended with "it is 100% unconstitutional. End of story", but it was preceded by a lengthy explanation. Did you see that part? In case you did, allow me to repost it for you in its entirety..

The problem here is the mixing of church and state. Thats it. If the state wants to offer a program whereby inmates can complete a "course" then be released early, I am all for that. But when the "course" is religious in nature (and in THIS case, very SPECIFICALLY evangelical and pentecostal christianity), the the state needs to provide an equivalent "course" for ALL religions, AND one that is specifically NOT religious. They failed to do that, hence it is 100% unconstitutional. End of story.



So, you see, you statement of

"Simply concluding "it is 100% unconstitutional. End of story" is not much of an argument. "

is not at all accurate about what I posted.

You do make a great point about being let out of their cells to attend services while others remain locked up. I hadn't thought about that. Nice job.

[jberryhill]

28. You would have a point if..

..the state denied non-religious organizations from offering similar programs.

Then there would be a 100% unconstitutional problem.

In your scenario, where the state offered a rehab program, and someone wanted to take an equivalent program offered by a religious group, what would you say?

And the reason I ask is that "community service" diversion options are provided by religious and non-religious groups all over the place.

Incidentally, do you consider Alcoholics Anonymous to be "non-religious"?

[cleanhippie]

29. Not sure, I've never been to an AA meeting.

From what I understand, you have to believe that there is a power greater than yourself, but thats it. IF that is accurate, I would consider that to be non-religious.

[jberryhill]

30. You might find this article interesting

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/does-mandatory-alcoholics-anonymous-violate-constitution.aspx

"The upshot is that parole and probation officers must be very careful when ordering treatment for addicts--they might find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.  Having said that, the damages in such a suit may not be very large. In one case, a New York man who claimed to be an atheist sued county probation officials for requiring him to attend AA after his third alcohol-related driving offense. A federal district judge agreed that the officials had violated the Establishment clause--but ordered them to pay just $1, as “symbolic” damages.

Optional Participation in AA is Constitutional

Mind you, in cases like this, the courts found that the government had forced the person to attend AA or NA. In other cases, where state or local officials simply made participation in AA one option for substance abusers, courts have not found any Establishment Clause violation."

This one, from an organization I support, includes a bit more legalese, and citations to the relevant cases

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/court-ordered-participation-in-a.a/

If you want to drill down further, you might look at this case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9769975594696337856&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

[cleanhippie]

31. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

I can see where requirement to attend would be a violation, where voluntary participation is not.

In the case in the OP, however, there was a get-out-of-jail-free card if you simply "embraced the faith" that was offered, with no other way to comply. Had they offered a secular way to get out of jail, I would see no problem.

Hopefully, we are seeing this similarly.

[jberryhill]

32. One distinction here...

Is that she wasn't threatened with anything for not participating, and was not required to participate.

She was found guilty and was going to jail. As in many diversion programs, she was offered the voluntary choice of doing something else instead, but wasn't going to receive anything other than the sentence she already received if she chose not to.

[darkstar3]

33. And that's an interesting way to look at it.

No doubt it is more reasonable to view this as a simple...accomodation...by the court. The problem I, and others, have is that the only accomodation given was religious in nature. It's as if the court is saying "If you're religious, we have a community service program for you, but if not then obviously you belong in jail."

[jberryhill]

34. In the booming metropolitan colossus of Ada County, Idaho

...there are likely few options for much of anything.

But the proposition was "you have been sentenced to jail. If you want, you can do this other thing, but it's up to you."

That is consistent with the cases in which coercion to participate in AA was not found.

I'm not comfortable with that, but it seems to be what the relevant cases suggest.

[darkstar3]

35. I would rather that the "other thing" not be offered if it places the court

squarely on the side of supporting a religious viewpoint.

I'm also of the opinion that creative or alternative sentencing should be done away with. Mandatory minimums are not the way, but certainly a form of standardization can prevent problems of unequal justice.

[jberryhill]

36. I "would rather" that too

But in a situation where someone has already been sentenced to a jail term, and there is some other voluntary diversion option, I have some concern about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

My wife insists that I also say she vehemently disagrees with me, and says it would be okay for a program to be conducted under the auspices of a religious organization provided there was no overtly religious component to the program.

Either view has merit, but I haven't seen a strong case indicating that as long as the religious program is not *required*, which it wasn't here, then it necessarily must not be made available on a voluntary basis. IMHO the church/state problem is at the other end, in determining "who is eligible to provide voluntary diversion programs".

If you look at the problem from that end, then you have a different church/state problem.

[darkstar3]

39. Not in the least, because that's a false choice.

Why is only one option offered? That's the crux of the problem. If many alternatives were offered, and not all of them were religious, then it wouldn't matter which ones were, and there would be no need to decide which programs are eligible.

It's the religion or jail choice that, whether intentional or not, is the problem here.

[dmallind]

6. But you can complain about that after you are done

In fact a full experience in the program would allow a better expose (whatever happened to alt-0233 to get the accent?) of its legal problems.

I guess I never saw the point in being an atheist martyr. I'm an open nonbeliever, but trust me when it becomes more than a source for occasional insults and starts determining my safety or freedom, you can bet the bank God will speak to me and that right soon. To do otherwise may seem noble, but I don't see the point here.

[14thColony]

8. You imply she's an atheist

Yet I see no indication of that in the article.

What if she were Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or simply an other-than-Pentecostal Christian?

It appears her only option for staying out of jail was conversion from whatever she was to whatever they are. In effect the State, by mandating completion of the program, is saying "accept Pentecostal Jesus or go back to jail, regardless of whatever faith you are."

And that's the point: while you may be able to fake it, you shouldn't have to.

[dmallind]

9. Didn't assume but it's a fair point. Don't see the value in ANY martyrdom though

And of course I agree she shouldn't have to. All of us however do some things we shouldn't have to.

[14thColony]

13. True, and I don't advocate falling on every sword that comes along

But what you see as martyrdom I see as merely taking a stand for what's right. But then I suppose that's how many martyrs got there, huh?

[dmallind]

15. I see that. A stance could have been made later though I think - as a free person. nt

[darkstar3]

23. Some people's principles aren't that flexible.

I will not be forced to pay lipservice.

[dtexdem]

7. Nonsense -- it can be worse than jail.

To have to go through such nonsense for a year is cruel and all-too-usual punishment.

Further, in playing a role, humans are all-too-likely to take on aspects of that role. This is why religious groups like this perpetrate such activities: indoctrination by moulding behavior.

[dmallind]

10. not sure how. Playacting vs imprisonment? Stupid, unconstitutional, but not cruel

I see no worse onus, and no worse fakery, in pretending to be religious than in pretending to be interested in small-talk or my earlier examples. People engage in fakery of many types to conform and prosper, from professional ass-kissing to being nice to annoying relatives.

[unblock]

12. voluntary acting is to coerced acting as consensual sex is to rape.

by analogy, you're saying she should have laid back and enjoyed it.

clear now?

[dmallind]

14. Clear? No - only clear that that's an absolutely ridiculous and evil analogy

Going along to get along is as violating as forcible rape? An outrageous, unspeakably vile assertion.

what is the difference between saying "oh Lord wash away my sins and accept me into your loving embrace" and saying "oh what a cute kid - he's got your eyes" when faced with another prunish miniaturized Churchill? It's a lie expected of you to be accepted by a larger group that determines your social status.

Neither of them force anothert person's genitals into your body. Clear now?

[starroute]

16. You seem to be assuming that *all* religion is a form of social hypocrisy

And that, as a result, it amounts to blind platitudes that can be mouthed without doing moral harm to the person who engages in it on false pretenses.

But what if that's not true? Or, at the very least, what if you believe that's not true?

Pentecostalism is not like mainstream religion, where you can just go to church, sit in a pew, stand up or kneel on demand, and follow along in the hymn book. In many ways, it might best be described as a form of magic with a light wash of Christian trappings. And if you sincerely believe in either magic or a more authentic form of Christianity, going along with something like that has got to give you pause.

There's also the fact that what's being described here is a cult. So the prisoner is being asked to volunteer to let themselves be brainwashed for a year and hope their personality is still intact when they come out the other end. That's a lot to ask of anyone, especially someone who is probably in a psychologically vulnerable position to begin with.

[unblock]

22. "neither ... force ... genitals into your body"? uh, duh. you do understand what an analogy is, yes?

i didn't say it's identical to rape, i said it's analogous to rape.

it forces another's religious beliefs into your head.
it forces another's religious words to pass through your voice box.
it forces another's religious rites onto your body.

you are aware that early european settlers made a very risky voyage across the atlantic to live in an uncertain and dangerous "new" land in no small part to escape the exact treatment you're saying the were stupid not to simply accept.

yes, there were many in europe who did not believe in the official religion of their nation yet chose to remain and "play-act". that was their choice. others felt that "play-acting" was so unacceptable to the point they put their lives in great danger to avoid it.


you act as this is a trivial matter and that people should be fine getting their rights trampled upon.
it's not.
and they shouldn't.

[unblock]

11. legally, you have to suffer damages in order to be able to sue

first, no one should blame the victim. if you're only given sucky, illigitimate choices, it's really hard fault someone for making the "wrong" choice.

second, in order to legally complain about something, you have to have suffered damages. had she faked it and gotten through the program successfully, the only complaint she could lodge would be based on some kind of emotional stress, and it's really hard to prove and quantify that sort of thing.

having stood up for the constitution and for our collective rights under the first amendment, THEY were stupid to send her back to jail instead of finding a non-religious alternative. but having done so, the damage to her was obvious and quantifiable -- x number of days spent in jail that otherwise would not have been.

[Odin2005]

25. There is this thing called PRINCIPLE, maybe you've heard of it.

[rrneck]

37. I was with you till

Keneau Reeves.

:rofl:

[janene cowles]

42. how dumb am I?

I suppose you had to be there to understand why I chose principle over bustin out in tongues; however, when making your comment you were certainly aware you lacked the particular dynamics of the situation...which leads one to then realize your comment says scads more about you than me...

[cleanhippie]

43. I am having trouble believing that you are who you say you are.

First post on DU is under your REAL NAME, and its about a comment made about you?


Come on, really?

[janene cowles]

45. That's exactly why you know it is me!

I have never blogged prior to reading blogs written about my case. Ignorant comments fueled by misinformation get to me sometimes especially now that I have lost in court and cannot take it to the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit refused to address the relationship between the Boise Rescue Mission and the Court that sent me there. They treated the case as if there was no court of law component, the key component. So on occasion I respond to something I read when I am the subject. How that does not make sense to you I'm not sure, but the fact I use my real name should be another indicator this is not something I do on a regular basis. Regardless, I don't normally get a response because its relatively old blogging news so I go unheard anyway. I briefly skimmed over your comments and I appreciate that you recognize the conflict of interest between church and state and that I may have acted out of principle rather than stupidity/ignorance. In the aftermath of my loss, your words, insightful words, bring me some comfort.

[cleanhippie]

21. What part of becoming a pentecostal Christian makes one "rehabilitated" in the eyes of the law?

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

40. Jesus is the cure for all illnesses and evils

Substance abuse, homosexuality, smoking, depression, lust, murder, adultery--you name it, it can be cured through the power of Jesus Christ.

[Deep13]

44. +1 nt

[Odin2005]

24. And these same fuckwits worship the Constitution they shit on.

[rrneck]

38. And the great hairy ogre of

disaster capitalism thunders ahead.

[cleanhippie]

41. Yep.