Here's the problem. There are right ways and wrong ways for a state-run prison facility to incorporate religious prison ministries. First is money. We don't want tax money going administer, support or fund the religious indoctrination of prisoners. If we wouldn't want the state funding a Muslim prisoner program, we shouldn't want to be publicly funding pervasively Christian programs either. Second is options. Prisoners should be able to enter religious programs voluntarily, and with as many faith options as possible--not coerced or manipulated with clear benefits over those who choose not to participate.

Ballor refers to the "fact" of the IFI program being "voluntary" but he begs the question. Whether or not the program was truly voluntary is one of the issues in dispute - the District Court judge looked at the evidence and decided that, among other problems, it was not in fact sufficiently voluntary. Those of us who--from a religious perspective--encourage church-state separation should emphasize that there are right ways for faith-based prison programs to operate. Ballor implies here that advocates of decisions like InnerChange and similar challenges would take all religion out of prisons. That's simply not the case. So long as religious elements aren't publicly funded, and the religious programs are truly voluntary (with the more faith options the better), faith-based prison ministries should continue to be an important part of the work of the church, and an important avenue in the lives of many prisoners.

Byrd accepts as "gospel truth" the district court judge's findings in the case, which to my mind have been very persuasively criticized in the appellate briefs you can read here.  I especially recommend PFM's brief, prepared by the the Becket Fund, and Iowa's brief.  The former is especially persuasive in showing how the district judge almost willfully misunderstood the nature of PFM's enterprise, which shouldn't be characterized in terms of the discredited language of "pervasive sectarianism."  The latter compellingly shows how the judge should have given more deference to the prison authorities in their pursuit of entirely secular aims.  Also important in the PFM brief is the argument that the so-called incentives to participate in the program, on which Byrd focuses, may or may not be present and may or may not be incentives.  The judge was persuaded by experts who hadn't actually spoken to any actual prisoners.  The Iowa brief also shows that there are many rehabilitative options for prisoners in addition to those provided by InnerChange.  That PFM's program in some respects looks better shouldn't matter.  As an appeals court has asserted in a decision in a comparable case (regarding a drug rehabilitation program for parolees) "quality cannot be coercion."

I share Byrd's view that there should be lots of different sorts of religious (and secular) programs in prisons, but I think he's wrong on the merits in this particular case.  In general, I wish those who criticize this sort of enterprise would put as much energy into providing "diverse" alternatives as they do into criticizing faith-based programs.