On September 28 2011 20:12 Enearde wrote: In France, we have what we call "community service" (dunno if this is the correct way to translate it). People who did small robbery or anything that is not a big crime can be forced to work for the country during a time corresponding with the thing they did (as a civil servant in a town). I think they cannot choose between jail and that.
It seems rather similar as i can see. It's not a bad idea but in France there is a lot of issues with this system because some judges overuse it a bit and sometimes it's more of a way to decrease some stats more than to let a person have a second chance.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
Dammit, I'm breaking my first internet commandment of not discussing about religion, especially not in English. Anyway, I don't really like the idea. Of course it could be seen as some kind of community service and it will probably be a little cheaper than jail sentences, but religion should not interfere with mundane law.
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.
The usual translation of Φαρμακεία is indeed pharmacy, in most of the ancient greek texts. (Sorcery would be the second translation) However, biblical greek is different from normal ancient greek. From the Septuaginta we know that the hebrew word for sorcery was translated as Φαρμακεία, which is showing that it simply was the best greek word for sorcery. In every translation of the bible you'll find that Φαρμακεία is translated as sorcery, my greek dictionary for the new testimony only gives this one translation, because of two simple reasons: 1. The traditional biblical translation for Φαρμακεία is sorcery. 2. Christian theology doesn't forbid the use of drugs. It'd be quite weird to see Paul accusing the use of drugs in one epistle, only to allow it in another one.
On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote: As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair.
I agree, plus it would be unconstitutional... it would mean that the government is particularly enforcing and supporting the establishment of a particular religion (see the First Amendment, especially the Establishment Clause).
As long as it's a general place of worship, I think it may be held in the court of law (like a mental institution would), but at the same time, I'm an atheist too, and this really isn't fair. It's kind of bullshit. Essentially no penalty for people who normally go to church o.O
On a side note... if it's being done in Alabama, then it's almost certainly just being done for Christian churches, not for all places of worship equally. The prisoners would pretty much need all options, and I doubt they're going to have it in a place as stereotypically bigoted as the Bible Belt.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Im not a constitutional lawyer, but im pretty sure that if they make these provisions for christians then they probably have to make the same accommodations for Jews, Muslims, etc. I don't think that this kind of thing can hold up to judicial scrutiny without at the very least including other religions.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Im not a constitutional lawyer, but im pretty sure that if they make these provisions for christians then they probably have to make the same accommodations for Jews, Muslims, etc. I don't think that this kind of thing can hold up to judicial scrutiny without at the very least including other religions.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Im not a constitutional lawyer, but im pretty sure that if they make these provisions for christians then they probably have to make the same accommodations for Jews, Muslims, etc. I don't think that this kind of thing can hold up to judicial scrutiny without at the very least including other religions.
That's exactly what I said. >.>
I know I was agreeing with you haha
I like that they are implementing a program that introduces minor criminals to a solid community that can help support them, but I worry that this system could be abused. does anyone know if the ACLU plans to file suit?
Would be okay if you can attend church, go to temple, go to a mosque, or any other religious place of worship. If it's for Christian churches only then it's pretty stupid.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
You actually failed to correct anyone, and instead made some inflammatory post about how everybody's wrong but you, and they should go be as right as you right away. Your post doesn't make people wanna read the article. It gets them through the first line and then has them saying "Oh this guy's a fuckhead"
(you aren't correcting people if you don't give them the correct information. you are just flapping your ego at them about how wrong they are which doesn't prove anything)
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Quoting the article: "will give those found guilty of misdemeanors the choice of serving out their time in jail, paying a fine or attending church each Sunday for a year." It's not just about substituting one rehab program for another. It's about avoiding actual jail time and fines. (Yes, the jail might have a drug program in it... but that's not the point.)
And how could they not deny the requests of people from other religions? The program is specifically about church attendance. What request is a person from another religion supposed to make? There aren't other houses of worship in the town. And not all religions have weekly services. And atheists certainly don't have an analogous thing they could do. And definitely not one they do anyway. The point is, if you're already a practicing Christian and attend church every week anyway, you have literally zero punishment. No one else could possibly get off that easy.
I'm trying to like the idea, but I just can't. I'm glad it's only happening in a small town of 700 people. If it was actually something knocking on my front door I'd oppose it to all 'hell' and back.
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Quoting the article: "will give those found guilty of misdemeanors the choice of serving out their time in jail, paying a fine or attending church each Sunday for a year." It's not just about substituting one rehab program for another. It's about avoiding actual jail time and fines. (Yes, the jail might have a drug program in it... but that's not the point.)
Jail time involved doesn't mean you go to jail for a year. You will not go to jail for a year for a non-violent misdemeanor. At most a misdemeanor will last that long, but that's not the case the article talks about at all.
Police Chief Mike Rowland said the measure is one that would help save money and help direct people down the right path. Rowland told WKRG it costs $75 a day to house each inmate.
"Longevity is the key," he told WKRG.
He said he believes 30-day drug programs don't have the long-term capabilities to heal someone in the ways the ROC program might.
And how could they not deny the requests of people from other religions? The program is specifically about church attendance. What request is a person from another religion supposed to make? There aren't other houses of worship in the town. And not all religions have weekly services. And atheists certainly don't have an analogous thing they could do. And definitely not one they do anyway. The point is, if you're already a practicing Christian and attend church every week anyway, you have literally zero punishment. No one else could possibly get off that easy.
There's many other ways to accommodate other religions, without building a place of worship in that town. Neighboring towns is the first and most obvious one, but they can bring in specific people as well, just like they do for prisons. Legally, they don't need to accommodate every religion, but there does have to be multiple options. Also, the program is not the same as going to Church. They still meet with the police and the pastor on a weekly basis, and there's probably continued testing.
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"
if you love "years of SCOTUS precedent" or can read "no law respecting an establishment of religion" then yeah, you can love "new law".
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.
Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct.
It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it.
I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services).
That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place.
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
Quoting the article: "will give those found guilty of misdemeanors the choice of serving out their time in jail, paying a fine or attending church each Sunday for a year." It's not just about substituting one rehab program for another. It's about avoiding actual jail time and fines. (Yes, the jail might have a drug program in it... but that's not the point.)
Jail time involved doesn't mean you go to jail for a year. You will not go to jail for a year for a non-violent misdemeanor. At most a misdemeanor will last that long, but that's not the case the article talks about at all.
Police Chief Mike Rowland said the measure is one that would help save money and help direct people down the right path. Rowland told WKRG it costs $75 a day to house each inmate.
"Longevity is the key," he told WKRG.
He said he believes 30-day drug programs don't have the long-term capabilities to heal someone in the ways the ROC program might.
And how could they not deny the requests of people from other religions? The program is specifically about church attendance. What request is a person from another religion supposed to make? There aren't other houses of worship in the town. And not all religions have weekly services. And atheists certainly don't have an analogous thing they could do. And definitely not one they do anyway. The point is, if you're already a practicing Christian and attend church every week anyway, you have literally zero punishment. No one else could possibly get off that easy.
There's many other ways to accommodate other religions, without building a place of worship in that town. Neighboring towns is the first and most obvious one, but they can bring in specific people as well, just like they do for prisons. Legally, they don't need to accommodate every religion, but there does have to be multiple options. Also, the program is not the same as going to Church. They still meet with the police and the pastor on a weekly basis, and there's probably continued testing.
Right, when I first responded to you I said he was wrong about the year duration but nothing else, and you told me I was wrong about that. I maintain that that is all his statement was wrong about.
And no, legally they don't just need to give multiple options. (If you think they do, I would challenge you to find any citation supporting that.) It's just as unconstitutional to force someone to be either Christian or Jewish as it is to force someone to be Christian. I guess if the town was willing to pay to fly in a religious leader or secular moral counselor once a week for someone who wasn't Christian to make sure they had the same opportunity available them, then sure, that might be ok, but I think we all know perfectly well that the town would never do that.
I am a Christian, and my knee-jerk reaction was that this is a bad idea, but after reading the article and doing a little research on the town, I think it could work, maybe.
I think what the judge is doing here is tapping the church as a community group. Bay Minette (the town in question) is a pretty small community of about 8000 people. (the suburb where I live in NJ has about 40k in comparison). Over 70% of this small population is some form of Christian. There are 9 churches listed (my suburb has 1).
It seems obvious that this is a place where most potential criminals are going to have some sort of religious background. If they are being required to have basically a weekly counseling session with a local pastor (who is one of the people they are required to check in with along with the police officer), I think that could really help a lot. Since 30 day programs are being ineffective, why not introduce a 52 day program?
On the other hand, if all this program is is go to church once a week -> sit there for an hour or two -> sign a paper and tell the pastor you were there, then that won't work and it really is a bad idea. Any Christian will tell you that going to church doesn't make you a good person (or a Christian) any more than going to McDonalds makes you fat, or going to the gym makes you buff. However, from reading the article, I don't think this is the case.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/818/818885_300.jpg)
