RELIGIOUS COERCION IN MICHIGAN CASE SHOWS GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE WARY OF
FAITH-BASED PROGRAMS

In a nation that cherishes religious freedom, how is it that a judge
permitted blatant religious coercion, endorsing one religion over another
and discouraging one religion? That's what happened when Joe Hanas, a young
man from Genesee County, was arrested for a nonviolent drug offense.

As part of a progressive court program, Hanas had a chance to receive drug
rehabilitation rather than go to jail. There was, unfortunately, one major
problem -- Joe Hanas is a practicing Catholic, and the program was operated
by Pentecostals. Though the judge's intent may not have been for Hanas to
convert to the Pentecostal faith, his test for Hanas' successful completion
of the "drug court" program hinged on just that.

The coercion was extreme, and it was an elected judge who allowed it.
Hanas' rosary, his Bible and his priest were all kept from him. Staff
members, none of them certified or trained drug counselors or therapists,
told him that Catholicism is a form of "witchcraft." He was not only
forbidden to follow his Catholic faith, but he was also tested on his
learning of Pentecostal principles.

And, he was told, his rehabilitation would not be complete until he knelt
at the altar and proclaimed himself "saved."

Hanas' only alternative was to request a transfer to another program where
he would not be coerced into practicing a religious faith alien to his own.
However, the judge viewed his early withdrawal from the program as an
indication that Hanas was not committed to overcoming his substance abuse.
The judge then took away the only opportunity Hanas had to receive
affordable residential drug rehabilitation and a possible dismissal of the
charges.

Programs like the one Hanas found himself in are common. In fact, these are
the kind of programs that President Bush funded when he was governor of
Texas; drug addiction is treated as a sin and Bible study is provided as
treatment.

It is also the kind of program that Bush wants to fund under his
faith-based initiatives, in which religious indoctrination is dressed up to
look like social welfare.

Advocates of government-sponsored and government-funded religion say
faith-based programs are constitutionally permissible as long as
participation in the program is voluntary, and there is a secular alternative.

But Joe Hanas was never given a secular alternative. His choice was to
either enroll in the Pentecostal program or go to jail. He wanted help and
he needed rehabilitation services, but his constitutional right not to
surrender his Catholic beliefs resulted in his being sentenced to boot camp
and jail.

What's disturbing about Hanas' case is that he was placed in such a program
by a court order, and that ultimately it was his commitment to his
religious beliefs that led to the jail sentence.

While faith-based programs may be well-motivated and helpful for some, it
is not appropriate for the government to fund them or coerce people to
participate in them. There is no doubt that religiously affiliated programs
can do a world of good. The work of such agencies as Catholic Family
Services, Lutheran Refugee Resettlement and Jewish Vocational Services,
which are performed under government contracts, have provided much-needed
services to thousands of people over the years.

When these groups accept a government contract to deliver services to the
community, they agree to serve the entire community and its needs. They
agree to provide services without discriminating over whom they hire and
serve. And they don't require participation in religious devotional
exercises as a condition of the services they are supposed to give.

Drug courts in Michigan are widely viewed as creative, cost-effective
alternatives to incarceration. Because of limited state money for drug
rehabilitation, programs are often operated by faith-based organizations.
And as more and more drug courts are created, rehabilitation programs will
be used more frequently.

The likelihood that there may be other cases like Joe Hanas' is one reason
why the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has appealed this case
to the Michigan Supreme Court. It is crucial that the constitutional
boundaries be clearly defined. Any entanglement between government and
religion is harmful to both government and religion, not to mention Joe Hanas.