|
On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote:
This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat. Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines. If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp. So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know.
|
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
Edit for clarification: The word translated "sorcery" is the Greek word pharmakeia from which we get the English word "pharmacy." The primary meaning is "the use or the administering of drugs" (usually associated with sorcery or idolatry).
Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
|
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_t2This 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.
Even if the criminal who agrees to go to church is an atheist as well it doesn't matter. The overall message of Church is bullshit (imo). There is no God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell. But every moral behind a story and the Ten Commandments are all things we should follow. Now, do I think this will change even non-violent criminals? Perhaps a few, so why not try it?
|
On September 28 2011 23:43 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 23:38 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
It's a good idea, who knows what will happen if the poor souls start thinking that whatever crime they did was their fault. No, it was Satan.
Unless the convicts are not Christian, that's when it's definitely their fault, like everything else that is wrong with the world.
You are welcome, and drop a coin in the collection box on your way out, you know how God is always broke.
Peace One of the more ignorant posts I've seen in quite some time, it's always good to read through topics where religion is mentioned and get a few good laughs at the morons.
Happy to provide!
|
On September 29 2011 00:08 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
Condemning others. Classic.
And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
|
On September 29 2011 00:05 ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote:
This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat. Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines. If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp. So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option? Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know.
You are literally giving me options and then telling me I don't have options. This may help you out. If you would like to continue telling me how options are not options you can PM me, otherwise, have a great day.
|
Church // Jail
Sing songs about god. // Sing songs to comfort yourself in the shower with big ass naked dudes.
Hit on the good looking girls at church. // Get hit on by your cell mate.
If you do screw up, a nun or priest talks to you. // If you screw up in jail, a guard might beat you.
Church events with lots of different great food and drinks. // Jail Food.
Starcraft/TL/Stream/etc after church. // Barely enough internet time to check your monitored email.
I'd rather have a year of the bible shoved down my throat then getting something else shoved down it.
|
On September 29 2011 00:09 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:05 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote:
This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat. Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines. If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp. So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option? Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know. You are literally giving me options and then telling me I don't have options. This may help you out. If you would like to continue telling me how options are not options you can PM me, otherwise, have a great day.
Ah I see. Semantics. Cool story bro. Have a good one.
|
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
The first amendment clearly states
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say "can't force" but says it can't even make a law respecting a religion. This alabama law seems to want to do this. By the way what the hell is that about american culture being destroyed? Seems like a bit of a red herring and a hyperbole if not blatant untruth.
|
On September 29 2011 00:09 Coraz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:08 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it. Condemning others. Classic. And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
I'm not condemning anyone. I gave you a quote from your own book. If anything, I applaud you for not letting religion dictate every facet of your life.
|
On September 29 2011 00:09 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +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_t2This 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. Even if the criminal who agrees to go to church is an atheist as well it doesn't matter. The overall message of Church is bullshit (imo). There is no God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell. But every moral behind a story and the Ten Commandments are all things we should follow. Now, do I think this will change even non-violent criminals? Perhaps a few, so why not try it?
Well, I like the creativity behind this attempt, though I agree that it might not be the ideal alternative to jail.
I'm thinking that part of the effect would have less to do with the doctrine of the church and more to do with the socialization of the offender in a church community.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 00:11 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?) The first amendment clearly states Show nested quote +Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This does not say "can't force" but says it can't even make a law respecting a religion. This alabama law seems to want to do this. By the way what the hell is that about american culture being destroyed? Seems like a bit of a red herring and a hyperbole if not blatant untruth.
They just need to offer alternatives for other religions. Not for everything, but for a few.
There's a lot of angst in this thread, especially from people assuming it's an automatic brain washing tool, as if adults wouldn't have the power to resist it on their own. Public policy is about compromise for overall benefit, and this can likely be a positive compromise over a substandard prison system. Making it spiritual and community based aids the rehabilitation process.
|
What if that person already went to church on a weekly basis? This program makes the silly mistake of assuming that people who commit crimes aren't religious (when in fact religious people are over-represented in prison populations). If they'd go to church anyways it's basically like there's no punishment at all.
|
While I completely agree with lessening jailtime, sending them to church instead is kind of... weird. You're not really helping anyone, and if you don't actually believe in God, you're just snoozing there once a week instead of actually paying for your crimes. While everything is better than jail (because that's actually proven to increase recurrence of crimes, especially after non-violent ones) it's a weird alternative, what if you already go to church once a week? What happens then? Do you just get a pass on minor crimes? What's wrong with community service?
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 00:15 YumYumGranola wrote:
What if that person already went to church on a weekly basis? This program makes the silly mistake of assuming that people who commit crimes aren't religious (when in fact religious people are over-represented in prison populations). If they'd go to church anyways it's basically like there's no punishment at all.
You're making the silly mistake of assuming that people who are religious attend Church.
You have no idea what the program consists of, and if you read the article (which, knowing TL, 98% of you didn't) the reasoning is sound. The main appeal of the method is longevity, because programs for minor drug offenses only last a month, if that, whereas this will be an entire year of regularly attending the church and meeting with a pastor and the police.
On September 29 2011 00:19 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
While I completely agree with lessening jailtime, sending them to church instead is kind of... weird. You're not really helping anyone, and if you don't actually believe in God, you're just snoozing there once a week instead of actually paying for your crimes. What if you already go to church once a week? What happens then? It's just weird.
You can get a lot out of religion without having faith. The morality taught by different sects of humanism and religion are all the same and aside from some extreme examples, no pastor or rabbi is going to have an ethics dialogue with nothing but "God's will" as the reasoning.
|
The problem is if you're already a church goer, then there is no penalty for you if you break the law.
|
It's probably just a small town in the middle of nowhere, and they mean if you get in a bar fight you can choose to go to church to prove to the defendant and/or the county that you have repaid your debt by opting into going to church instead of the other ways to repay debts.
America was founded on the freedom of cities and communities to govern ourselves inside of a constitutional republic. If this county wishes to initiate this program and its accepted by a majority of the citizens, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Period.
|
On September 28 2011 20:50 Eternalmisfit wrote:
I am not a big fan of this since it is pretty much a get out of jail pass for minor crimes for a regular church-goer. It would have made more sense if it was a choice between community service and jail time.
That's really funny, i read this article on CNN yesterday and thought it was a good idea. But that point kind of changed my mind.
But then again anything that reduces the amount of ppl in US prison system can't be the WORST thing ever @_@
|
On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote:
This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat. Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines. If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp. So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
One is almost not a punishment. I'm not religious, but church for 1 day a week for a year where i get to go home and chill compared to 1 year of jail is a fucking joke. The option is clearly better from a punishment point of view, intelligent people will go with church.
What do you take, 100 dollars or 10 dollars? there is a choice, but one is clearly better than the other.
|
It will be interesting to see how this works out. It seems kind of like putting someone in a rehabiliation group or something similar though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
