By: Chalmer Wren
Chalmer Wren of the RSA's Freethought Books Project
Editor’s Note: Chalmer Wren is the former Vice President and the current Advisor to the Metro State Atheists in Denver, Colorado. He is an eager supporter of the Freethought Books Project, having recruited over 30 members to the cause. We at the Reed Secular Alliance hope that you will enjoy this article about the RSA’s Freethought Books Project.
In 1991, 8,500 volunteers and contractors provided over 191,000 religious service programs in prisons, and an average of 45,000 inmates attended chapel programs each week [1]. Monasteries and convents provided the precursory model for the modern prison, and the historical line between secularism and religion behind bars remains as blurry as it was then [1]. The persistence of religious influences in the penal system is no surprise, as it serves as a powerful management tool. According to Mary Bosworth, an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Wesleyan University, religion is, among other things, a management tool that prison administrators use to their benefit [1]. Religious services make prison management easier by preoccupying inmates with activities, facilitating a healthier social environment in the form of religious community, and serve as a psychological coping mechanism for the emotional or circumstantial hardships that inmates face [1].
Although the religious prison programs are intended to be interfaith in nature, these programs have been abused. For example, in December of 2006, in an Iowa lawsuit brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), it was ruled by a U.S. District Court judge that a prison’s contract with faith-based program known as the InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) was unconstitutional, in that it amounted to a government establishment of religion. Although state funding for the IFI ceased in June 2007, the program continued to operate without state funding. Moreover, IFI programs continue to operate in 5 other states [2]. Additionally, in March of 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit determined that a program run by the Prison Fellowship Ministries was discriminatory, as it acted under the guise of state law, with the intention of converting inmates [2].
The predominant religious influence perpetuated in our prisons and the lack of non-religious resources – while useful in controlling inmates – are a disservice to the incarcerated. The Freethought Books Project addresses this issue by providing literature that is not only critical of religion, but that also educates individuals about critical thinking, philosophy, and science. Non-religious points of view can be every bit as fulfilling and motivational as religious attitudes and, as human beings, our inmates deserve the opportunity to explore secular worldviews. Providing just that, the Freethought Books Project seeks to influence the prison population itself, by providing literature on topics not encouraged by prison staff. Since I believe that positive lifestyle changes can occur as a result of atheist and freethinking works, I strongly support this worthwhile secular charity.
While faith may be one means of rehabilitating criminals, it is not the only one, nor is it always successful. The formal fight against religion in our government, such as the aforementioned lawsuit against the IFI program, is a strategy that approaches the problem from the top, by changing policies and management. The Freethought Books Project, however, is an ambitious and important project, which combats the problem of religion informally and from the bottom, by attempting to influence and provide for the prison population itself. Although politics is important, altering the mindset of the prison sub-culture is also a critical step in reinforcing the secular presence in and effectiveness of our prison system.
Religion is a prominent aspect of the prison subculture, both formally and informally. While I do believe that inmates should be allowed their freedom of religion, as well as access to religious services and activities, the institutionalization and application of religion to rehabilitate and control prison populations is a clear violation of the Separation of Church and State. Informally, a lack of access to alternative points of views, peer pressure, and the intention of appeasing their captors, inmates themselves provide little resistance to the strong religious presence.
If I were an atheist prisoner, I would find the majority of rehabilitation programs either hostile or neutral to my point of view. The institutionalization of religion in our prisons, and the lack of resources that are critical of religion, that facilitate critical thinking, or that provide the personal meaning and direction outside of religion, have rendered imprisonment as more than just an incarceration of the body, but also an incarceration of the mind. In the interest of liberating minds, I support the Freethought Books Project’s efforts to give prisoners access to secular materials.
—-
Notes:
1. Bosworth, Mary. “U.S. federal prison system.” SAGE, 2002. Digital.
2. Sullivan, Winnifred. “Prison Religion.” Princeton University Press, 2009. Digital.
[...] Why I Support the Freethought Books Project Chalmer Wren, Metro State Atheists former Vice President, has was recently invited to write an article for The Reed Secular Alliance about their Freethought Books Project. That article can be found at http://reedsecular.org/2009/06/13/chalmer-wren-book-projec/. [...]
popurls.com // popular today…
story has entered the popular today section on popurls.com…
Where is the data that proves religious programs work? Likewise, where is the data that shows an atheist-based program would work better?
State-mandated religion of course is against our constitution…. But, if in each case, it is not state-mandated, then why jump into something without knowing if the programs work? By introducing an atheist approach to rehabilitation, how are you sure you would be helping the prisoner rehabilitate themselves vs hurt them?
If prison systems recognize that faith-based initiatives actually reduce violence in prisons, and help prisoners stay out of prison then unless atheist initiates have valid data to back up their way is better, why offer their solution? Why would a prison even consider it without facts to back it up?
I often hear argument about atheism and morality – You don’t have to fear a god to do good things. “Just do good for goodness sake”.
Typically, some of the people in prison has apparently decided they don’t have to be good at all.
Is it possible that “the cause” isn’t the right thing for these people? If all you do is give them one less reason to care about what they do to others, your energy might be better spent elsewhere.
[...] the original post: Why I Support the Freethought B… Share and [...]
[...] Why I Support the Freethought Books Project By: Chalmer Wren Editor’s Note: Chalmer Wren is the former Vice President and the current Advisor to the Metro [...] [...]
John,
You said
“Where is the data that proves religious programs work? Likewise, where is the data that shows an atheist-based program would work better?”
The data regarding the effectiveness of religious programs is discussed in the books I cited. As for an atheist based program working better, I don’t recall making that particular claim. In fact, a program based on the non-existence of God seems a bit silly to me. Atheism is a lack of belief in something, and has no inherent principles, rules, or teachings. However, given the scope of this essay I felt it would have been distracting to get into details about the definition of “effectiveness.” as it pertains to the rehabilitation of inmates. My support for the Freethought Books Project is based on my belief that our inmates are currently in a bias system that is dangerously easy to abuse by management and which may not be effective for everyone.
“State-mandated religion of course is against our constitution…. But, if in each case, it is not state-mandated, then why jump into something without knowing if the programs work?”
I am not against religious programs that are not state mandated are disproportionately promoted.
“By introducing an atheist approach to rehabilitation, how are you sure you would be helping the prisoner rehabilitate themselves vs hurt them?”
This is not an atheist approach, and at no point in the blog did I ever use atheism as a basis to justify my position, save for and example of how a bias system would be incapable of helping me personally. Also, I support the idea of equal access and promotion of secular, not necessarily atheistic, rehabilitation programs so that inmates have a larger pool of options to choose the course that is right for them.
“If prison systems recognize that faith-based initiatives actually reduce violence in prisons, and help prisoners stay out of prison then unless atheist initiates have valid data to back up their way is better, why offer their solution? Why would a prison even consider it without facts to back it up?”
I am not asking that state faith initiatives be abandoned. our prisoners are human beings, and should have the access to religious services like everyone else. However, non-religious individuals deserve the opportunity to and access to non-religious rehabilitation programs and the ability to pursue those opportunities without derision, coercion, or bias influence.
I would think actually that the best means of rehabilitation would be psychiatric treatment. There is something cognitively *defective* about most criminal behavior; people who perform street muggings or bank robberies aren’t behaving in a rational way. (People who embezzle stock options may be; but they aren’t the most common criminals.)
In fact, I think the justice system has two primary goals: 1. Making immoral acts irrational through punitive consequences. 2. Helping people behave rationally.
We do a fair amount of the first, but very little of the second.
Patrick, are all prisoners in need of psychiatric treatment? Or rather, have the environmental and psychological circumstances led to them committing crimes? I fear that medication, while it can help, isn’t always the answer.
On a different note: It’s conceivable that religious indoctrination could be effective in deterring crime or rehabilitating criminals—but also immoral.
Imagine if we had a technology which allowed us to control the thoughts and actions of other people with high precision; we could implant devices in the brains of criminals and henceforth use remote control to keep them out of trouble. It would certainly rehabilitate criminals; yet it seems to me that the cost in theft of liberty is simply too high to be worth it.
Since religious indoctrination basically entails, as far as I can tell, blatantly lying to people on a massive scale and persuading them to believe ridiculous delusions—unless it is the only way to prevent crime, it may still be wrong.