According to the BJS, 4.4 percent of prison inmates and 3.1 percent of jail inmates reported having experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization by other inmates and/or staff at their current facility in the preceding 12 months. While some suffered a single assault, others were raped repeatedly: on average, victims were abused three to five times over the course of the year.

These surveys are done via in-person drop-by one day visits to jails or prisons.  Given the traffic in and out of many prisons and jails throughout a year, the real number of people abused is much higher than the 88,500 yearly Americans recorded in the report.

Surprisingly, inmate on inmate abuse in female prisons was more than twice as common as the same abuse in male prisons, and men and women inmates are both more likely to be abused by prison staff than by fellow prisoners.  This latter detail is particularly shocking and should raise our collective ire.  Sexual abuse is not some form of punishment – it is not “getting what’s coming to you.”  Punishments are set by a jury and judge – they do not include sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse degrades the prisoner.  It is an attack on their human dignity, and it will scar them in an inhumane way.  It is cruel and barbaric, and it should not be encouraged, entertained, or made light of by anyone.  It is not justice – it subverts justice by striking at the core of human dignity.

Read more on this study via Just Detention International.

Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls “moralistic therapeutic deism.” Translation: It’s a watered-down faith that portrays God as a “divine therapist” whose chief goal is to boost people’s self-esteem.

…..

She says this “imposter” faith is one reason teenagers abandon churches.

“If this is the God they’re seeing in church, they are right to leave us in the dust,” Dean says. “Churches don’t give them enough to be passionate about.”

While it’s common practice to blame parents for all of the faults seen in their children, in this particular case I think the parents really are the ones to blame.  By putting a watery faith lacking conviction and depth on display in front of their children for years, they make their perspective on faith perfectly clear.  How can you blame young people for not taking their faith all that seriously when their parents have never taught them otherwise?

But parents aren’t the only ones to blame:

Churches, not just parents, share some of the blame for teens’ religious apathy as well, says Corrie, the Emory professor.

She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews.

“If your church can’t survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad,” Corrie says. “We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice.”

Most American churches have been preaching a spoiled, self-help gospel for years, and this is the natural result of that kind of preaching.  When your parents and your pastor only look to their faith in order to feel better about themselves, you’re not likely to take it very seriously.  Moreover, the second your supposed faith lets you down, you have perfect grounds for abandoning it.  After all, if it didn’t help you, what good is it?

Churches and parents need to regain awareness of their own sin and their need for God.  This will produce true humility and a recognition of the importance of faith.  Our prosperity in the U.S. makes this sobering realization more difficult, but it is a necessary step if the younger generation is ever to take faith seriously.

The problem is that President Obama does not understand the essence of America’s Judeo-Christian founding. For example, let’s look at Obama’s Mosque statements. His statements below were recently delivered to a Muslim audience at the White House Ramadan Iftar Dinner:

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”

The writ of our Founders? In the Iftar Dinner speech President Obama presumes to know what “our Founders understood,” as relating to religious freedom. Mr. Obama cites Jefferson and quotes the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, in part: “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”

I wonder if Obama knows the context of the Virginia Act and of the reasoning of Thomas Jefferson? The Act prohibits the State of Virginia from compelling attendance at religious worship and financial support of religion. Significantly, in making his argument, Jefferson does not appeal to vague principles of “religious freedom” and “our values,” as Barack Obama does.

While Obama appeals to fuzzy notions which could never support religious freedom, Jefferson appeals to Virginia’s common Christian faith. Shockingly, to the postmodern reader, Jefferson, in the Virginia Act, points to the Lord of Virginia’s religion as an example for why the State should not be involved in compelling worship:

[State compulsions in matters of religion] tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions . . . .

Notice that Jefferson refers to the “Holy Author of our religion.” That’s quite a statement. Virginia had a common religion (until the federal government illegally broke the chain of transmission in the public schools) and the Founders referred to the common religion of the states as “general Christianity.” Virginia legislators of Jefferson’s era believed the Commonwealth’s general religion should be advanced, but that no one should be compelled to support any particular Christian sect (denomination).

Jefferson’s best argument for the state to cease compelling people to attend service and support religion is Christ’s own example of propagating religion without coercion. “Who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions . . . .” Incidentally, Jefferson refers to Christ’s “Almighty power,” in the Act.

Liberals, progressives, Marxists – or whatever you choose to call far left radicals – always seem to omit the full context and reasoning when quoting the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.

Mr. Obama is either ignorant of America’s religious heritage or willfully ignores it. In fact, the President of the United States spoke for all Americans in Turkey in 2009, saying that:

[We] do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation [was there ever a belief that we might be a Muslim nation?], but rather, a nation of citizens who are, uh, bound by a set of values.

Back in 2007, Obama told CBN News that:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just.  We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Much attention has been drawn to the fact that Obama believes America is no longer a Christian nation, but perhaps more significantly is his preface, “Whatever we once were.”

How could a prospective president of the United States say “whatever we once were?” Does Obama really not know what we once were? Do we have the first president to have confessed ignorance of his country’s own history? Or does it simply not matter to him in his quest to fundamentally transform America?

Mr. Obama, a man having no proper foundation of what America once was, could make these bizarre statements in his Cairo speech in June of 2009 without questioning his teleprompter:

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

The assertion that Islam has always been a part of America’s story is laughable on its face. But then, what do the facts of early American history have to do with anything?

In the Cairo speech, Obama mentions one of his perceived responsibilities. I suggest that Mr. Obama get his responsibilities in order and first come to grips with the principles of history that produced the greatest freedom the world has ever seen.

Before speaking of religious freedom it might be helpful to understand the American framework which provides for religious liberties. Otherwise, nothing can be prohibited so long as empty words of “religious freedom” and “tolerance” are invoked.

Monte Kuligowski is a Virginia attorney having several articles published in academic law journals.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

Picture above from Flickr user Jason Rosenberg licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License

I don’t want to delve into this very deeply, but I did want to point out one of the evidences the State Department uses in its argument that the United States is a strong promoter of human rights.  Among recent “advances,” the State Department points to the Obama administration’s health care reform and finance reform efforts.

What, pray tell, do health care and finance reform have to do with human rights?  We have redefined “rights” out of existence!  The idea of a human right has ceased to carry any weight, because it means whatever we want it to mean.  Essentially, the average American today seems to think of rights as specific privileges we want to make sure everyone has.

This approach is a bastardization of an idea of fundamental importance.  Our nation was founded on the idea that human beings, as humans, have certain basic rights inherent to their very beings that cannot be added to or taken away.  They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Rights are absolute.  A government may trample your rights but it cannot take them away.  They are yours by definition.  By the same token, government cannot create new rights and bestow them upon the populace just because “everyone thinks it’s a good idea.”

We need to abandon our increasingly sloppy and destructive redefinitions of “rights.”  Let’s use “privileges” or some other term and leave “rights” alone while it still has some modicum of meaning.

Such feelings are natural enough, of course – anyone who lives on a street for 15 years, like Ms. Brown, is liable to become attached to the buildings on her street.  But this case is a bit different.  The new neighbors, Geoff and Melissa Teehan, want to replace the old house for a very legitimate reason: Melissa is disabled, and the couple hopes to build a new house with ramps, an elevator, low cupboards, etc. that will allow her to get around to the best of her ability.

Ms. Brown heard about their plans (Geoff had been blogging about their house online) and decided that she did not want to look out her window at a new, modern-looking house, regardless of her neighbors’ reasoning.  So she contacted the city council and asked to have the property declared as a “heritage property,” thereby putting severe restrictions on what can be done to the house.

As you might suspect, Brown didn’t bother to contact the Teehan’s before filing this request.  When the Teehan’s first bought the house, it did not have official “heritage property” status, but apparently the city is very lax in designating heritage areas, so Ms. Brown’s appeal will be considered and the city may attempt to halt the property changes.

The Teehan’s surprise and subsequent frustration are understandable.  From The Toronto Star (click here to read the full article; h/t Reason):

The Teehans have trouble believing, finally, that they even have staunch opponents. “I am shocked,” Geoff Teehan says, “that the facade of a home is more important than the needs of a family. Communities are made of people. They’re not made of houses.” Says Melissa, calmer: “It just saddens me. We just want our lives back. We’re not trying to upset anyone. We just want to live our lives.”

I’m very fond of old buildings and historical communities, but the Teehan’s are in the right here.  If indeed their house did not have “heritage” status when they bought it, they should be free to renovate it now.  Even if the city has the “legal right” to label the house as a heritage property, it would be a great injustice to impose that decision on the Teehan’s after they bought this home with the intention of remodeling it to meet Melissa’s needs.

Communities are indeed made up of people – some people would just rather not think about that.

Sadly, long-standing Republicans do not share his enthusiasm.  Only 13 co-sponsors have signed on in the House, and, when asked about the plan, House Minority leader John Boehner said, “[Ryan did] some really, really good work in putting this plan together” but failed to comment further.  In fact, Boehner resorted to an Obama-like call for “an adult conversation” on these issues (read more of the article from The Times by clicking here).

We’d all like to have an adult conversation, but a real adult conversation involves putting your support behind real, tangible solutions.  Too many Republicans would rather bad mouth and point fingers at Democrats without offering anything substantive in return.  It’s easier to get reelected if you don’t commit to anything.

This has been the sad story of national politics for years (if not decades).  Let’s hope the chain gets broken this November.

In predictable hyperbolic fashion, critics of judge Lamberth’s decision enjoining President Obama’s executive order on ESCR are declaring that “the sky is falling.” According to Sean Tipton at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the injunction “blocks important research on how to unlock the enormous potential of human embryonic stem cells,” and “will be incredibly disruptive and once again drive the best scientific minds into work less likely to yield treatments for conditions from diabetes to spinal cord injury.”

Mr. Tipton ignores that fact that Mr. Obama’s executive order flies in the face of a federal law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which has been in place since 1996 and which prohibits federal funding of research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos. This law went into effect because a majority of members of Congress rejected the “ends justifies the means” approach advocated by Mr. Tipton and others like him – people who are willing to throw off any ethical restraints in pursuit of so-called scientific endeavor. A proponent of the utilitarian “science without limits” approach to scientific investigation, the newly minted President tried to do an end run around the unambiguous law by redefining the word “research” to mean something other than its plain meaning and then authorizing this “research” by an executive order.

The Obama administration, of course, wasted no time in announcing its plans to appeal the ruling.

President Obama and his supporters in the scientific community argue that any impediment to ESCR is necessarily an impediment to the fight against terrible diseases and medical conditions. The potential of ESCR, they insist, is limitless and unprecedented. Failure to pursue this technology vigorously, then, would be to condemn countless individuals to needless suffering and death. Dig a little deeper, however, and it becomes immediately apparent that this position is not one based upon any kind of scientific evidence, but rather upon an ideological conviction that views the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a sacrosanct endeavor that should not be made subject to pedestrian ethical or moral constraints of any kind, period.

Is this the philosophy of science that President Obama had in mind when he spoke of science’s “proper place?” Is this why his executive order discontinued funding for alternatives to ESCR, alternatives that have proven more successful than the embryonic approach without any of the ethical controversy? Is this why he felt justified in manipulating the power of his office to override standing federal law? It’s clear from the president’s words and actions on this issue that the answer to all of the above is a resounding “yes.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama and his boutique constituency of scientific “experts,” the American people have very strong views when it comes to issues dealing with the sanctity of human life, be it ESCR or abortion or euthanasia. And, thankfully, there are still some members of the Judiciary who have very strong views when it comes to abuse of executive authority. These two factors, when combined, are likely to prove difficult to overcome, even for someone of Obama’s notable political gifts. He just might have gotten away with it if it weren’t for that pesky judge! Kudos to Judge Lamberth for exposing the President’s executive order for what it really is: a thinly-veiled, ideologically motivated attempt at an end run around the Constitution.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty”  He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

The problem, however, is that 64 percent of Americans still believe it is simply not the right thing to do. Just as they would not seek to place a church across from Auschwitz, out of respect for the victims of 9/11, they have agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat) that the mosque should be built somewhere else.

This is intolerance?

To read statements by Daisy Khan, wife of the mosque’s imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, one would think that Islam itself – and its place in America – were at stake. “This is like a metastasized anti-Semitism,” said Mrs. Khan in an interview with ABC News. “That’s what we feel right now. It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia – it’s hate of Muslims.”

Hatred of Muslims?

Times like these require the cool heads of responsible leaders. Unfortunately, Mrs. Khan is not one of them. With the exception of New York Governor David Paterson, the Ground Zero Mosque controversy has seen an astonishing withdrawal of civic leadership.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, for example, is questioning the motives of the Ground Zero opposition, accusing them of “ginning up” the controversy. For his part, President Obama has abdicated any leadership of the issue. In so doing he has overseen the complete unraveling of the goodwill he derived from his Cairo initiative. According to an August 12 Rasmussen poll, 36 percent of Americans expect Muslim-American relations to worsen over the next year, while just 11 percent expect them to improve. Last year, those numbers were reversed.

This is not to say that the proponents of the Mosque do not deserve our sympathy. They make a convincing case. They argue that no mosque is in fact being built on Ground Zero; it is, instead, merely a smaller mosque outgrowing itself. This small, local mosque naturally does not want to move – it has found its home (it was even damaged during the 9/11 attacks, according to one report) – and will be located no fewer than 4-5 blocks away from the hallowed ground of Ground Zero, virtually out of sight (reportedly), and just one block closer to Ground Zero than the mosque’s current location. Though most New Yorkers oppose it, more Manhattans favor it than do not (46-36 percent). Furthermore, it is more than just a mosque that will be built – it is a Cultural Center that will build bridges between misunderstood faiths.

While these arguments have merit, the opponents of the mosque must be heard as well. They have questions that deserve answers: Why must the current mosque be converted from a nondescript, smallish building to a 13-story leviathan? Why will it cost $100 million? Where is this funding coming from, anyway? Jon Stewart says Saudi Prince Waleed bin Talal is one backer. Who else?

After all, it is not as if Islamic financing has been unproblematic in recent history. Putting aside concerns of illegal (terrorist) financing, the source of the financing also holds implications for the content of the Center’s message – if it coming from Saudi Arabia, it will undoubtedly fund an interpretation of Islam favorable to Wahhabism. New Yorkers, understandably, wish to know what that message will be.

For proponents of the Mosque, this is a lot to chew on. While that may be, answering these kinds of questions is precisely what building bridges requires. It requires listening to your neighbors. It requires dialogue and understanding. It requires painful discussions and yes, it requires compromise.

The Mosque’s backers do not seem to understand this. When opposition started to form, instead of “getting out in front” of the controversy and increasing the transparency of their project – as skeptics had asked – they instead turned insular, stubborn. For his part, New York governor David Paterson did the right thing by offering alternatives, going so far as to offer the Mosque state property at another site out of respect to all parties. But instead of seeking to work with his fellow citizen and fellow neighbors, Mr. Abdul Rauf rejected the solution out of hand.

“How much more foresighted would it have been if the imam who is the developer of the project had been willing to hear what we are actually talking about?” Paterson went on to say.

As someone who spent many years of his adult life working to build bridges between Muslims and Americans, I am personally saddened and disappointed by the obstinacy of the Mosque proponents. Stubborn zeal is admirable if the goal were in fact the defense of a persecuted religion. But the avowed goal has been phrased much differently. The avowed goal of the project, as stated by the mosque’s imam, is to build bridges.

If burning them were its true intent, only then could this project be considered a resounding success. This project has done nothing to improve the unease Americans are feeling toward American-Islamic relations. 9/11 may be nearly 10 years removed, but the shooting at Fort Hood and the near-success of Yemen’s “underwear” bomber are not. Any honest interfaith effort must take the raw feelings these incidents have left behind into account.

It is as if Mr. Abdul Rauf and his backers do not concern themselves with current events. Should we not worry of the story of the fork-tongued, Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki? Like Mr. Abdul Rauf, Anwar al-Awlaki once praised America and American ideals.

Is it “intolerance” if Americans wish to peer under the hood first before they see this Center built or if they ultimately deem its message unsuitable for the site of the largest massacre in American history?

Mr. Abdul Rauf, after all, does bear more than a little resemblance to al-Awlaki’s former self. Mr. Abdul Rauf, like the earlier al-Awlaki and many other clerics with anti-American inclinations, likes to hedge his opinions of the United States of America. Americans, in the midst of a decade of wars in and around the Muslim world, are unsure of what to make of this lack of commitment. To name a few examples, Mr. Abdul Rauf has called America an “accessory” to 9/11, making it that much more difficult to stomach his prominence around Ground Zero’s hallowed ground.

With regards to the American Declaration of Independence, Mr. Abdul Rauf has only managed to say that “it speaks of principles that comply with Islam.” Which of these principles do not comply? Life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

Americans have trouble with this kind of tepid support. And why shouldn’t they? Perhaps Mr. Abdul Rauf means no harm by it – perhaps this is his best effort at reconciling his mutual devotion to his faith and his life in this country. It is also possible that, for most New Yorkers and most Americans, his best may not be good enough.

Certainly it would have been much better for all involved if Mr. Abdul Rauf and his backers had been more open and proactive.

But whatever the case, as is now clear, if it were bridges he were building, Mr. Abdul Rauf would have agreed to move the mosque long ago.

Andre Castillo is an M.A. graduate of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).  He writes frequently on issues of U.S. politics and foreign policy.

The CJS Forum seeks to promote an open exchange of ideas about the relationship between faith, culture, law and public policy. While all the articles are original and written especially for the CJS Forum, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for a Just Society.

Picture above from Flickr user sninky-chan licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 License

The term dehumanization gets used often to describe what happens to a victim, particularly of a violent crime. But it’s all [too] often what happens in the realities of the American system of criminal justice.

Simply because people commit crimes, heinous, violent, or otherwise, it does not mean that they cease to be human persons.

I’ve long held that many of the inhumane elements of our prison system would be improved with a more straightforward application of justice.  People who steal from others should be forced to repay their debts.  This benefits the victim, points to true justice, and allows the criminal to repay his debt and resume a rightful place in society.  This is true justice.  Simply putting such people in prison to live for months or years on taxpayer dollars without making any substantial contribution to society does nothing to benefit the prisoner or the victim.

This principle could be extrapolated beyond simple theft to include reasonable punishments for crimes like drug possession (perhaps such criminals could be forced into counseling, strict rehab, and serving in a rehab center).  The essential point is that we are seeking to achieve a more immediate form of justice.  You could argue that prisons are the least humane form of punishment.  They trap the prisoner for months, years, or even decades without any chance to make up for his crimes.

If this more immediate justice was in place, perhaps we could avoid the kind of inhumane treatment Ballor mentions in his article (a police officer threatened a man taking video on his cell phone, saying “Guys in jail are going to rape you”).  We too often want to categorize all inmates as lesser human beings, perpetually tainted by their crimes, instead of allowing them to redeem themselves and become contributing members of society once again.  We need to rethink this system.

Townhall

Dakota Voice

Renew America

Christian Post

Crosswalk

Catholic Exchange

kkla.com

India Times

CNS News

Right Street Writer

“Right v. Rectitude” was linked by:

Catholic Tide

MSG.com

New Media Blog

Road Runner

White Wash State

Kevin’s Korner Blog

Conservative Compass

Daylife

Brian Lee Blog

St. John the Baptist Catholic Church

“Right v. Rectitude” was quoted by:

Texas for Sarah Palin Blog