|
I don't understand why people are saying "oh Christians would have gotten a free pass on this program". Personally, I would not look forward to having my pastor have to officially note that I was on a 52 week program for smoking pot or whatever. There would probably be a few charged conversations...
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:
[quote]
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. ![[image loading]](http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/818/818885_300.jpg) 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 I maintain he probably didn't read the article. 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. There have been a number of rulings on the Establishment Clause and the general theme is that the government may not promote a specific religion or message, but may interact with religions for secular purposes. Usually it comes up over Christmas lights and stupid shit like that. It's not a specific religious ceremony they're being forced to attend. It's a choice between a place of worship of their choice or community service, instead of prison time. The police chief said faith-based leaders approached him in March after a neighborhood shooting asking what they could do "as pastors and as representatives of the community to help stem future incidents of violence."
A series of community meetings yielded "overwhelming" support for grass-roots intervention, he said.
He said the weekly reporting requirement is simply a tracking mechanism to gauge compliance and not to mandate morality.
Participants would choose their place of worship and could opt out at any time by appearing before a judge and requesting another sentencing option, he said. Saying "Profess a belief in God weekly or else we will put you in jail" doesn't promote a specific religious message? That's not at all what it says. I don't know if you've attended a religious ceremony or discussed things with a religious leader, but I have with several and as an atheist, I have never been particularly pressed to adopt someone else's faith. If you go to Confirmation in a Hebrew School, it's usually more like a philosophy and ethics class that challenges and pushes the religious texts. It depends on the actual institution, but again they have a choice and attending doesn't even mean you're forced to accept their faith. The ethical elements are generally shared between religions and western morality. And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative. It's in the ABC article.
For example, Everson v. Board, "No person can be punished for professing or entertaining religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance." That should be clear enough. Strictly speaking, they're being punished for a misdemeanor, not for not attending Church. It's a crucial distinction.
|
Why would you say "unlike me"? I learned some moral lessons from the bible, that doesn't mean some of my time spent in church wasn't boring though.
Well because you didn't say anything about that, you just said it was boring 
I guess I just disagree with the idea that a justice system should be purely rehabilitative. There needs to be some determent in the legal system from committing the crime in the first place as well, and knowing you can just "go to church if you get caught" provides no determent whatsoever.
It's like if you break the law, an optional punishment would be a slap on the wrist. Who is less likely to break the law knowing that, versus paying thousand dollar fines or spending months in jail.
I'm pretty sure this program would have been available only to people charged with minor crimes that honestly should not be resulting in a possible jail sentence in the first place. We put too many people in jail in this country for ridiculously minor "crimes."
I'd rather have them being bored in some church than costing me and you and everyone else money at $800 a day in taxpayer funds or whatever it costs nowadays to keep someone in jail.
|
On September 29 2011 02:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:
[quote]
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 I maintain he probably didn't read the article. 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. There have been a number of rulings on the Establishment Clause and the general theme is that the government may not promote a specific religion or message, but may interact with religions for secular purposes. Usually it comes up over Christmas lights and stupid shit like that. It's not a specific religious ceremony they're being forced to attend. It's a choice between a place of worship of their choice or community service, instead of prison time. The police chief said faith-based leaders approached him in March after a neighborhood shooting asking what they could do "as pastors and as representatives of the community to help stem future incidents of violence."
A series of community meetings yielded "overwhelming" support for grass-roots intervention, he said.
He said the weekly reporting requirement is simply a tracking mechanism to gauge compliance and not to mandate morality.
Participants would choose their place of worship and could opt out at any time by appearing before a judge and requesting another sentencing option, he said. Saying "Profess a belief in God weekly or else we will put you in jail" doesn't promote a specific religious message? That's not at all what it says. I don't know if you've attended a religious ceremony or discussed things with a religious leader, but I have with several and as an atheist, I have never been particularly pressed to adopt someone else's faith. If you go to Confirmation in a Hebrew School, it's usually more like a philosophy and ethics class that challenges and pushes the religious texts. It depends on the actual institution, but again they have a choice and attending doesn't even mean you're forced to accept their faith. The ethical elements are generally shared between religions and western morality. Show nested quote + And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative. It's in the ABC article. Show nested quote +For example, Everson v. Board, "No person can be punished for professing or entertaining religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance." That should be clear enough. Strictly speaking, they're being punished for a misdemeanor, not for not attending Church. It's a crucial distinction.
I think you could easily interpret the situation as "if you don't choose this church option, you're going to be punished with this instead..." which is pretty much the same thing in my eyes. I mean, are you still given an option if they change it to "attend church or pay a $20,000 fine"? No, it's pretty much a mandatory church sentence in that case, so it depends on extremity. Simply because other options exist is a poor argument to me.
On September 29 2011 02:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
Why would you say "unlike me"? I learned some moral lessons from the bible, that doesn't mean some of my time spent in church wasn't boring though.
Well because you didn't say anything about that, you just said it was boring Show nested quote +I guess I just disagree with the idea that a justice system should be purely rehabilitative. There needs to be some determent in the legal system from committing the crime in the first place as well, and knowing you can just "go to church if you get caught" provides no determent whatsoever.
It's like if you break the law, an optional punishment would be a slap on the wrist. Who is less likely to break the law knowing that, versus paying thousand dollar fines or spending months in jail. I'm pretty sure this program would have been available only to people charged with minor crimes that honestly should not be resulting in a possible jail sentence in the first place. We put too many people in jail in this country for ridiculously minor "crimes." I'd rather have them being bored in some church than costing me and you and everyone else money at $800 a day in taxpayer funds or whatever it costs nowadays to keep someone in jail.
I wouldn't. I'd rather fine them.
|
On September 29 2011 02:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Perhaps the idea is not to punish them but instead maybe hope that unlike you they have the capacity to get some kind of moral lessons from Bible stories, maybe get a little Christian spirit and rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities.
Which isn't to say you are lacking them, you just got them somewhere else so you didn't need Sunday School or whatever. But people can learn secular lessons from religious material.
Question: what would you have said if they were given the choice of jail or attend a mosque? After all, maybe a little Allah in them will rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities.
|
On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:Also, in good news, the town has backed off the obviously stupid program.
That makes me happy to see.
|
I think you could easily interpret the situation as "if you don't choose this church option, you're going to be punished with this instead..." which is pretty much the same thing in my eyes. I mean, are you still given an option if they change it to "attend church or pay a $20,000 fine"? No, it's pretty much a mandatory church sentence in that case, so it depends on extremity. Simply because other options exist is a poor argument to me.
Well how about no option, go straight to jail.
Is that more or less coercive and punitive than "if you don't go once a week to this church you can go to jail," and why?
Why is it the same thing in your eyes, honestly most Protestant churches these days have like 45 minute services, it's pretty much a joke... unless religion and you are like a vampire and some garlic deodorant or something.
Question: what would you have said if they were given the choice of jail or attend a mosque? After all, maybe a little Allah in them will rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Cathedral, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, whatever. Make them go to Shinto services. Whatever.
This is the kind of stupid post that should get people warned or something, it's trollish to the extreme. What, exactly, would make you think I am anti-Muslim and that that kind of question is relevant or appropriate? Really, come on.
I wouldn't. I'd rather fine them.
You have a very high faith in how many fines actually get paid in this country, and a very high faith in the ability of fines to change behavior (hint: they don't).
|
On September 29 2011 02:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:
[quote]
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 I maintain he probably didn't read the article. 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. There have been a number of rulings on the Establishment Clause and the general theme is that the government may not promote a specific religion or message, but may interact with religions for secular purposes. Usually it comes up over Christmas lights and stupid shit like that. It's not a specific religious ceremony they're being forced to attend. It's a choice between a place of worship of their choice or community service, instead of prison time. The police chief said faith-based leaders approached him in March after a neighborhood shooting asking what they could do "as pastors and as representatives of the community to help stem future incidents of violence."
A series of community meetings yielded "overwhelming" support for grass-roots intervention, he said.
He said the weekly reporting requirement is simply a tracking mechanism to gauge compliance and not to mandate morality.
Participants would choose their place of worship and could opt out at any time by appearing before a judge and requesting another sentencing option, he said. Saying "Profess a belief in God weekly or else we will put you in jail" doesn't promote a specific religious message? That's not at all what it says. I don't know if you've attended a religious ceremony or discussed things with a religious leader, but I have with several and as an atheist, I have never been particularly pressed to adopt someone else's faith. If you go to Confirmation in a Hebrew School, it's usually more like a philosophy and ethics class that challenges and pushes the religious texts. It depends on the actual institution, but again they have a choice and attending doesn't even mean you're forced to accept their faith. The ethical elements are generally shared between religions and western morality. Show nested quote + And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative. It's in the ABC article. Show nested quote +For example, Everson v. Board, "No person can be punished for professing or entertaining religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance." That should be clear enough. Strictly speaking, they're being punished for a misdemeanor, not for not attending Church. It's a crucial distinction.
Yeah, you're right that it doesn't force you to profess the belief, but attendance would be forbidden by many belief systems, and at the very least you're being forced to listen to a lot of propaganda for the religion, and it intent is clearly to promote belief in God.
You're being sent to jail only if you 1) commit a misdemeander and 2) don't attend church. The point is that the choice to not attend church should not result in you being punished. What you would have to argue for your theory to work is that your right to choose your own religious beliefs and activities goes away when you're convicted of a crime. That's not on face crazy. Obviously some of your rights are taken away when you're convicted. (Jail itself would obviously be a rights violation without a criminal conviction first.) But it is well-established law that certain rights, including free exercise of religion, survive criminal conviction.
|
On September 29 2011 02:15 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:11 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:[quote] 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 I maintain he probably didn't read the article. 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. There have been a number of rulings on the Establishment Clause and the general theme is that the government may not promote a specific religion or message, but may interact with religions for secular purposes. Usually it comes up over Christmas lights and stupid shit like that. It's not a specific religious ceremony they're being forced to attend. It's a choice between a place of worship of their choice or community service, instead of prison time. The police chief said faith-based leaders approached him in March after a neighborhood shooting asking what they could do "as pastors and as representatives of the community to help stem future incidents of violence."
A series of community meetings yielded "overwhelming" support for grass-roots intervention, he said.
He said the weekly reporting requirement is simply a tracking mechanism to gauge compliance and not to mandate morality.
Participants would choose their place of worship and could opt out at any time by appearing before a judge and requesting another sentencing option, he said. Saying "Profess a belief in God weekly or else we will put you in jail" doesn't promote a specific religious message? That's not at all what it says. I don't know if you've attended a religious ceremony or discussed things with a religious leader, but I have with several and as an atheist, I have never been particularly pressed to adopt someone else's faith. If you go to Confirmation in a Hebrew School, it's usually more like a philosophy and ethics class that challenges and pushes the religious texts. It depends on the actual institution, but again they have a choice and attending doesn't even mean you're forced to accept their faith. The ethical elements are generally shared between religions and western morality. And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative. It's in the ABC article. For example, Everson v. Board, "No person can be punished for professing or entertaining religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance." That should be clear enough. Strictly speaking, they're being punished for a misdemeanor, not for not attending Church. It's a crucial distinction. I think you could easily interpret the situation as "if you don't choose this church option, you're going to be punished with this instead..." which is pretty much the same thing in my eyes. I mean, are you still given an option if they change it to "attend church or pay a $20,000 fine"? No, it's pretty much a mandatory church sentence in that case, so it depends on extremity. Simply because other options exist is a poor argument to me. Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Why would you say "unlike me"? I learned some moral lessons from the bible, that doesn't mean some of my time spent in church wasn't boring though.
Well because you didn't say anything about that, you just said it was boring I guess I just disagree with the idea that a justice system should be purely rehabilitative. There needs to be some determent in the legal system from committing the crime in the first place as well, and knowing you can just "go to church if you get caught" provides no determent whatsoever.
It's like if you break the law, an optional punishment would be a slap on the wrist. Who is less likely to break the law knowing that, versus paying thousand dollar fines or spending months in jail. I'm pretty sure this program would have been available only to people charged with minor crimes that honestly should not be resulting in a possible jail sentence in the first place. We put too many people in jail in this country for ridiculously minor "crimes." I'd rather have them being bored in some church than costing me and you and everyone else money at $800 a day in taxpayer funds or whatever it costs nowadays to keep someone in jail. I wouldn't. I'd rather fine them.
As would I. The point I'm making is you're not going to make anyone think twice about the legal consequences of their "minor" crime if they can just go to church.
Even a small fine would provide some deterrence, not to mention help share the financial burden criminals put on the state.
|
On September 29 2011 02:11 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +For example, Everson v. Board, "No person can be punished for professing or entertaining religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance." That should be clear enough. Strictly speaking, they're being punished for a misdemeanor, not for not attending Church. It's a crucial distinction.
Except if you're atheist, and attending the lesser sentence of church (and no reasonable person wouldn't consider it a lesser sentence) violates your beliefs, then you are being punished for a disbelief in religion. You either take a greater sentence or violate your beliefs and attend church.
|
On September 29 2011 02:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Question: what would you have said if they were given the choice of jail or attend a mosque? After all, maybe a little Allah in them will rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Cathedral, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, whatever. Make them go to Shinto services. Whatever.
How egalitarian! Thank you for your answer.
|
On September 29 2011 02:15 KSMB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Perhaps the idea is not to punish them but instead maybe hope that unlike you they have the capacity to get some kind of moral lessons from Bible stories, maybe get a little Christian spirit and rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities.
Which isn't to say you are lacking them, you just got them somewhere else so you didn't need Sunday School or whatever. But people can learn secular lessons from religious material. Question: what would you have said if they were given the choice of jail or attend a mosque? After all, maybe a little Allah in them will rehabilitate their law-breaking personalities.
How about instead of all of this "Let's have them learn morality through religion", we force them to go to some sort of school so they can get a fucking education and become a functioning member of society One of their classes can be ethics too.
And they can pay for all of it.
Rehabilitation and knowledge ftw.
|
Maybe, just maybe, this was not some sort of moustache-twiddlingly nefarious attempt to convert the last 2000 holdouts Bay Minette, Alabama, but instead a moustache-twiddlingly nefarious attempt to leverage the (at least) NINE churches in the town's EIGHT square miles as a community resource? Anyone stop to think of that?
|
On September 28 2011 20:40 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +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. Did you just call atheism a religion? Or was that a troll I can't figure out? By all means, atheism is no religion. And this is why I think this "way of punishment" sucks, because if you don't believe in god you are basically discriminated against your feeling about religion. You'd have to betray yourself and your own thoughts just to avoid prison.
well, dictionaries define "religion" as
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion
and all the Atheists I know are definitely zealous and conscientiously devoted to their beliefs.
to the op, I think it's not very practical, because who decides if the criminal has been rehabilitated?
But on the other hand, I think sending less people to prison is a good thing.
|
On September 29 2011 02:36 Carson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 20:40 KeksX wrote: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. Did you just call atheism a religion? Or was that a troll I can't figure out? By all means, atheism is no religion. And this is why I think this "way of punishment" sucks, because if you don't believe in god you are basically discriminated against your feeling about religion. You'd have to betray yourself and your own thoughts just to avoid prison. well, dictionaries define "religion" as - A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion and all the Atheists I know are definitely zealous and conscientiously devoted to their beliefs. to the op, I think it's not very practical, because who decides if the criminal has been rehabilitated? But on the other hand, I think sending less people to prison is a good thing.
Yeah, no. By that definition, my teaching students math or tennis is also religious because I love it so much. You simply defined "passion". Religious people can be passionate about their beliefs, but not all passionate people are religious. And atheists can be passionate about disproving religion, but, again, passion =/= religion.
The definition of religion incorporates many more things:
"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.
The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture."
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Also:
"re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. "
~http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Atheism is clearly not a religion. It does not fit these definitions. /discussion
|
On September 29 2011 02:32 DDAngelo wrote:
Maybe, just maybe, this was not some sort of moustache-twiddlingly nefarious attempt to convert the last 2000 holdouts Bay Minette, Alabama, but instead a moustache-twiddlingly nefarious attempt to leverage the (at least) NINE churches in the town's EIGHT square miles as a community resource? Anyone stop to think of that?
I think everyone has thought of that. It's obviously well-intentioned. But it's a decision made by a small town where most people are Christian, and in the US (and especially the south) where being Christian is thought of as synonymous with being a good person by many people, there is very little thought or respect given to making sure non-Christians have their rights protected. It's very common for people to explain during sentencing how they're an upstanding, church-going person and get lighter sentences because of it. It's a deeper societal prejudice that usually manifests in subtler ways. This program might even be good at reducing crime and facilitating rehabilitation. But there are a lot of reformers arguing for more rehab constantly. In the US in general and the south in particular, a tough-on-crime attitude has prevailed, where sentences keep going up and up and up, and a huge fraction of the population ends up in prison. Wrapping the pro-rehab argument in religion makes it a lot more politically acceptable to some people, but it also results in a situation where the harms of the unreasonable justice system fall only on a cultural minority. Not only is that persecution in and of itself, but it means that the politically dominant group will never feel the urge to fix the system, because they will be exempt from some of the most serious harms. I think you'll find that most injustices in the world are done by people with nothing but good intentions.
|
On September 29 2011 01:51 Holgerius wrote:
Unless they provide similar alternatives for people with other beliefs, this is complete and utter fucking bullshit IMO. =/
I do like how they're kinda using going to church as a punishment though. XD
While I don't agree with the policy, it doesn't use going to church as a punishment at all. It is a means of rehabilitation, and no matter your religion, you can get a lot from meetings with a pastor as well as a sermon. I could see this possibly working in a city with more religious facilities, and the spirit of it is great.
|
Isn't jail-time for non-violent crime kind of a problem to begin with? I mean, we're keeping in mind how high recidivism rates in the West are, right? Our prison systems seem to do a much better job of turning small-time offenders into hardened criminals than the opposite, no matter which Western nation you're in.
If someone, without the money to pay the fine, can escape that hell by suffering a small-time punishment, and maybe learn a thing or two about morality, all the better.
FYI, I'm pretty anti-established religion, but I can still cede that religion can and does do some good in the world in isolated cases.
|
On September 29 2011 01:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:48 Eknoid4 wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:
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. In the age of religious reactionism and fervent anti-secular anti-intellectual religious sentiment in the United States, the separation of Church and state should NOT be ceding any ground. The secularism of this country is quite literally under attack by the religious right who see godless laws as the worst thing that could possibly happen. It doesn't matter if this program has a 100% efficacy, exceptions should not be made that allow the Church into our laws any more than it already is, at least until the church backs the fuck off. It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity for people to blur church and state with their own separate religion. The fact is you're still blurring the line, and unlike a lot of hyperbole across various arguments, giving religious fanatics an inch on anything really is a slippery slope toward giving them their dream government. The constitution doesnt' say "Congress shall only make laws that respect establishments of religion equally and fairly" It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And for those of you who don't understand what respecting means in that context, it means giving reference to, not "giving respect" to. Hooray for slippery slope arguments. This is not the secularism that America has practiced since its inception, fyi. You can personally take it to the Supreme Court and read through past proceedings, but American secularism operates more closely with agnosticism than atheism. Some of the forefathers like Jefferson might have been atheist, but they weren't uncompromising ones. Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote:
Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator Totally irrelevant. >.>
What the hell does this have to do with atheism? All you've done so far in this thread is tell people why they're wrong and given almost no evidence or even rationale behind anything you say.
Have you ever fallen down a slippery slope? They exist. Being one of the internet pseudopsychologists who can wikipedia fallacies doesn't mean you have thus far demonstrated what they are or where the lines are drawn that determine them. When one group is aggressively moving (or trying to move) in a direction (IE the US toward theocratic government), if you help them in that direction, it is only logical that you move them along in that direction much faster than if you helped move a neutral party or a skeptic in the same direction. It's not a fallacious argument. It's a different way to say "you give them an inch and they take a mile" in this case.
You're not arguing. You're trolling. It's not even the funny kind of trolling. It's the bitter guy who doesn't like the argument trolling. Actually try to at least guess at what is right instead of just why I or anyone else is wrong or you won't help to stem any of the issues you have with anybody, and instead will just create more baseless crap tothrow around. Please avoid giving me vague hardly relevant factoids that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So far you've had nothing constructive to offer anybody in this thread. If I tell you you're wrong and explain, in turn, what I think is right, it's an exploration into what I might not have thought of, not "Hey I'm sure I'm wrong but i sure do wish someone would tell me that just to make sure."
Of course there are and will be compromises. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the government directly supporting having a house of worship over not having one (Hint: Agnostics don't have a house of worship either. Agnosticism vs atheism has absolutely no causal or correlative relationship with Religious tolerance vs intolerance). What equitable options will agnostics, atheists, and people whose religions don't have local houses of worship get?
This whole situation creates more holes in the law than it solves problems. If you can give me a counter-argument, I'll happily listen. If not, just skip on to the other people hastily listing things that don't make sense to them.
|
On September 29 2011 02:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Condemning others? Were you perhaps committing your second drug offense when you wrote that?
You made an ill-informed statement and he corrected you.
And what does any of this have to do with atheism? Can christians not be corrected when they are wrong? Or can you only be corrected by other christians, lest you feel persecuted for your ignorance? What it has to do with atheism is the attitude that you display here, typical of internet atheist warriors: aggressive, condescending, and rude. Differences of opinion are actually a matter of ignorance, etc. It is possible to disagree with religious convictions without being a jerk about it... really, it is...
If you write something wrong on the internet you will be corrected by some pedantic asshole. No matter what the subject is.
If you choose not even to acknowledge that you were wrong but rather to feel victimized by atheist internet bullies then you will be called out by another asshole (me) for being a whiny idiot.
If you actually read what is quoted you'd see that there is no disagreement about religious convictions. It's just one guy saying something blatantly wrong, being corrected and then playing the victim.
And yes it is entirely possible to disagree with religious convictions without being a dick about it. Nobody likes these pointless atheist vs christian debates. But this wasn't one, so go take your high horse somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
