Faith in Iowa Prisons

Michael P. asks "how should we think about" the program discussed in this recent New York Times article.  For what it's worth, I think we should approach the article's account with some care, even skepticism. 

For starters, the title -- "Religion for a Captive Audience" -- seems a bit misleading, since no inmates are required to participate in the "Inner Change" program or others like it.  Second, it strikes me as relevant that the author, Diana B. Henriques, was also a lead contributor to the Times' recent four-part series on religious exemptions.  That series, I think, was seriously flawed, and missed the boat in a number of respects.

Finally, it is true -- as the story mentions -- that the federal-court decision invalidating the Iowa program cited some allegedly anti-Catholic incidents in support of the conclusion that the program violates the First Amendment.  As I argued in this amicus brief, though, the district-court judge went well beyond the facts, and his own expertise, in characterizing the theological content of the program and pronouncing on the views of Evangelicals and Catholics.  For more detail, check out the brief.

This is not to say that, under current constitutional doctrine, all things considered, the court erred in invalidating the program.  But, in my view -- and I'm certainly not one to downplay the reality of anti-Catholicism -- the anti-Catholicism theme in the opinion, and in the news story, is a red herring.