Alabama City Allows Church as Alternative for Jail - Page 10

On September 29 2011 04:18 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think its amusing that going to church is seen as equivalent to jail time...but I suppose in this case its really about rehabilitation rather than deterrence. I am curious why the ACLU is so against it...its an option, no one is forcing them to go to church. But perhaps the thinking is that, its such an easy, lesser sentence than jail time or paying a fine, that the local authorities are essentially supporting intervention through religion rather than through typical methods.

I guess its depends what they teach at the church. But its hard to believe that they won't involve Jesus/God in some way, and try to influence the people forced to go there through religious arguments.

I don't know where to stand on this issue. I know these people are grown adults, and can think for themselves...but still a lot of people can be easily influenced, especially if they're still young adults. At the same time, reading Jibba's posts, if they have almost no resources at their disposal, the risk of such influence may be a small price to pay if the message is a good one overall.

I just hope that this won't be used as a case to allow the same thing to happen in other municipalities on larger scales. Having an increasingly intertwined church and state is a scary idea, even if the end result is unlikely.

On September 29 2011 04:26 Demonhunter04 wrote:


What else would they teach at church to a person who opts for this sentence?

On September 29 2011 04:30 Coutcha wrote:
That's fucking unfair to non-catholic people...

On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote:
Didn't see a thread on this.

A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).

The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/26/jesus-or-jail-alabama-town-offers-options-for-serving-time/?hpt=us_t2

This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.

But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.

And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.

What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.

On September 29 2011 04:54 ShAsTa wrote:
Church and state should be separated.

On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.



You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:

"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."

So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.

On September 29 2011 05:07 DminusTerran wrote:


The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.

Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.

I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.

Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.

The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.

It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.

Just my three cents.

On September 29 2011 03:11 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:

"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."

So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.

On September 29 2011 05:17 Demonhunter04 wrote:


I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this.

On September 29 2011 05:25 DminusTerran wrote:


Fair enough, but it just results in you falling to their level. Especially when those frustrations are vented against someone or something who might of had nothing to do with that particular person's ignorance or attitude. However I would note that you shouldn't feel the need to persuade people of religions lack of basis in actual fact. Alternatively when attempting to present such an argument try to frame it in a manner that doesn't come across as dismissive. As by doing so you can easily induce the kind of stonewall attitude that you seem to be so frustrated by. To truly convince people of the merits of your point of view you often need to present your opinion in a metered and amicable fashion.

On September 29 2011 05:19 Mindcrime wrote:


Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.

You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.

Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.

On September 29 2011 05:58 jinorazi wrote:



i have a question on that matter,

as far as i understand,
"there is no god" is atheism
"there probably is no god" is agnostic atheism
"there is god but not related to any religion we're aware of" is agnosticism

am i understanding it correctly? for that reason i've always labeled myself as agnostic atheist.

On September 29 2011 04:35 rhmiller907 wrote:
Two of my friends have been to prison both for drug offenses. All prison did was made it worse. One was in for 5 the other for 3. They both came out worse than before they came in. Prison basically just forces criminals to be criminals behind bars and when they leave they take that mentality with them(not all but many). I believe that if church makes them want to be better people then yes it is a good idea. I am no longer a christian although I was for many years; and if these people will obey the basic principles of helping the weak and needy and living a life free of murder thievery and lies. Then who cares if the religion is real or not if you believe it and it makes you a better person than it is a good thing.