Eighth Circuit ruling is setback for White House Faith-Based Initiative Commentary
Eighth Circuit ruling is setback for White House Faith-Based Initiative
Edited by:

Alex Luchenitser [Senior Litigation Counsel,
Americans United for Separation of Church and State]: "On December 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
ruled that the State of Iowa has violated the constitutional guarantee
of separation of church and state
by providing tax-funded aid to a
religious "rehabilitation" program operated in an Iowa prison. Inmates
in the program receive many special benefits that are not available to
other inmates, including better housing, expedited access to classes
required for parole, and greater contact with family members. Inmates
of other religions are effectively precluded from participating in the
program – a fundamentalist form of Christianity saturates the program,
and program personnel and materials have denigrated other faiths.

The court's ruling is a major setback for the White House's Faith-Based
Initiative. The court held that public funds cannot be used to support
a program "dominated by Bible study, Christian classes, religious
revivals, and church services." The decision reaffirms that government
bodies have an obligation to ensure that tax funds are not used for
religious activities. And the ruling makes clear that the government
may not channel public aid in a manner that makes the aid available only
to persons who hold certain religious beliefs.

The ruling comes at a time when many states have been cutting funding
for secular treatment programming and instead turning to religion-based
options – often highly sectarian ones. The court's decision should put
the brakes on this alarming trend. Prison officials should ensure that
state-supported treatment programs provide instruction that is equally
appropriate for all inmates, and that religious rehabilitation is not
linked with any material benefits."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.