PAROLE'S PRIMROSE PATH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT RELIGION (Guest post by Lawrence Andrus).
On occasion an Idaho lawmaker begs the question, "Why does a prisoner of the state remain incarcerated past his eligible parole date?" Reasons run the gamut. More often than not Idaho Department of Correction staff can cite myriad disciplinary problems -- in other words, breaking the rules -- for holding onto a prisoner longer. By law a convict may be imprisoned for an "indeterminate" period of months, or even years. The convict's minimum, "fixed" sentence set by a district court judge is just that -- a minimum.
But in rare occurrences a prisoner finds himself held by IDOC on pat religious grounds. Despite the obvious constitutional issues (or one might rather say abuses), IDOC presses its "programming" brainworks as somehow a viable alternative to Jesus Christ. A convict truly born again in Christ must choose between the two paths, and only by the primrose path of state programming can a prisoner ever get his chance at parole. No exceptions.
Given the opportunity to answer, the Idaho Commission on Pardons and Parole demurs. "IDOC's programs are not religious in any way. They are cognitive behavioral programs designed to develop skills," writes a parole executive. By invoking the very term "behavorial," however, the Commission hurls headlong into the religiosity of humanism, or "self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism" (as "humanism" gets defined in Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition). In fact, the dictionary places "humanism as a religion."
To discuss in open company whether IDOC's programming satisfies even mean expectations makes the powers that be squirm. But recidivism speaks for itself, as one programmed parolee after another marks his return to prison only months after release. Programming course work has largely become a cottage industry for jobs creation inside the Idaho prison system. Taxpayers pony up funds for so-called "facilitators" and case workers who train in methods of think tank-propagated mind controls. The facilitators rehash the programming for classrooms of prisoners in line to parole and get on in the world. Once more, success is arguably poor.
Yet, the man born again by the Spirit of Christ knows himself for whom he really is. And the "self" presents him as someone desperately wicked. While programming steers a prisoner to SELF-effort, SELF-improvement, and SELF-fulfulfillment, all such attitudes about self indeed corrupt the convict who became a new man in Jesus Christ. His walk thereafter proceeds "in Christ," rather than in his self.
Thus, by "programming," a born again believer decides to go it on his own, and forsake Jesus Christ. The two paths never meet. Nor can they.
From the worldly perspective a prisoner gets told he must conform to some misguided idea of parole at all cost. To be with family. To become the model citizen. To establish himself among men. Or just to be free. But a convict in Christ Jesus counts the cost. He casts off the world view. By taking parole's primrose path -- programming -- the repentant prisoner would be giving back the only true Freedom worth giving up everything for: his relationship with Jesus.
For purposes of clarity it has to be noted that no IDOC employee forces the state's programming on any prisoner. The First Amendment "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution also ensures that no prisoner ever has Jesus Christ foisted upon him either. But IDOC's programming points the only way to parole. Christ does not, or so say parole authorities. In effect, a Christian convict must remain imprisoned for an indeterminate number of years just because he firmly holds to a belief, namely, "The Lord Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) , over the self-righteousness of programmed self-effort.
Perhaps an Idaho legislator should put the question of why some men stay well beyond their eligible parole dates another way. "Where does IDOC's programming end, and humanism begin, in paroling Christian prisoners?" It might prove enlightening.
To contact Lawrence directly, write to him at:
Lawrence Andrus
#113829 / ISCC / Unit F3
P.O. Box 70010
Boise, ID 83707
or use JPay.com
But in rare occurrences a prisoner finds himself held by IDOC on pat religious grounds. Despite the obvious constitutional issues (or one might rather say abuses), IDOC presses its "programming" brainworks as somehow a viable alternative to Jesus Christ. A convict truly born again in Christ must choose between the two paths, and only by the primrose path of state programming can a prisoner ever get his chance at parole. No exceptions.
Given the opportunity to answer, the Idaho Commission on Pardons and Parole demurs. "IDOC's programs are not religious in any way. They are cognitive behavioral programs designed to develop skills," writes a parole executive. By invoking the very term "behavorial," however, the Commission hurls headlong into the religiosity of humanism, or "self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism" (as "humanism" gets defined in Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition). In fact, the dictionary places "humanism as a religion."
To discuss in open company whether IDOC's programming satisfies even mean expectations makes the powers that be squirm. But recidivism speaks for itself, as one programmed parolee after another marks his return to prison only months after release. Programming course work has largely become a cottage industry for jobs creation inside the Idaho prison system. Taxpayers pony up funds for so-called "facilitators" and case workers who train in methods of think tank-propagated mind controls. The facilitators rehash the programming for classrooms of prisoners in line to parole and get on in the world. Once more, success is arguably poor.
Yet, the man born again by the Spirit of Christ knows himself for whom he really is. And the "self" presents him as someone desperately wicked. While programming steers a prisoner to SELF-effort, SELF-improvement, and SELF-fulfulfillment, all such attitudes about self indeed corrupt the convict who became a new man in Jesus Christ. His walk thereafter proceeds "in Christ," rather than in his self.
Thus, by "programming," a born again believer decides to go it on his own, and forsake Jesus Christ. The two paths never meet. Nor can they.
From the worldly perspective a prisoner gets told he must conform to some misguided idea of parole at all cost. To be with family. To become the model citizen. To establish himself among men. Or just to be free. But a convict in Christ Jesus counts the cost. He casts off the world view. By taking parole's primrose path -- programming -- the repentant prisoner would be giving back the only true Freedom worth giving up everything for: his relationship with Jesus.
For purposes of clarity it has to be noted that no IDOC employee forces the state's programming on any prisoner. The First Amendment "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution also ensures that no prisoner ever has Jesus Christ foisted upon him either. But IDOC's programming points the only way to parole. Christ does not, or so say parole authorities. In effect, a Christian convict must remain imprisoned for an indeterminate number of years just because he firmly holds to a belief, namely, "The Lord Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) , over the self-righteousness of programmed self-effort.
Perhaps an Idaho legislator should put the question of why some men stay well beyond their eligible parole dates another way. "Where does IDOC's programming end, and humanism begin, in paroling Christian prisoners?" It might prove enlightening.
To contact Lawrence directly, write to him at:
Lawrence Andrus
#113829 / ISCC / Unit F3
P.O. Box 70010
Boise, ID 83707
or use JPay.com