A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).
The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).
This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.
But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.
And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.
What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.
I don't think that this will catch-up in other places because if it does in a way you can just steal from people and have a million year "church" sentence. And with that being said I'd choose church over jail any day.
On September 28 2011 20:01 pred470r wrote: I don't think that this will catch-up in other places because if it does in a way you can just steal from people and have a million year "church" sentence. And with that being said I'd choose church over jail any day.
I am with the OP on this one, if you put someone behind bars, even the most successful person can become a liability to society.
I'm all for more rehabilitation in the American justice system, even if it is religious based. But if I already go to church does that mean I get leniency for petty crimes whereas non-christians don't?
Sorry if this is answered in the article but my internet keeps dying... hard enough to surf TL.
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.
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 read the article and it sounds like this is only available at a Christian church as there are no mosques, synagogs, or etc. in the area. I don't see this spread to many other cities, because honestly what happens when someone wants to choose Scientology; or worse Pastafarianism or Tarvu for that matter?
Given a 30 day drug program or the opportunity for some other misdemeanor diversion program I might still take those, as Church every Sunday for a year in a small Alabama town would be kind of like 52 days of prison spread out over a year.
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.
Definitely agree. I can definitely see why this would fly in a small town in Alabama but not NYC for example. But if they did a system that allowed any religion (let's say, "peace promoting ideology or something stupid), I would support it at least more than jailing everyone for anything. Even if it's still a silly solution, people might like it.
On September 28 2011 20:07 teddyoojo wrote: I'd rather go to jail for 2-3 weeks than to church for a year
Honestly, I might too. But not everyone would, and the beneficial part to me is saving money on jail.
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.
How would it work for atheists? Go to... uhm a class in science?
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 20:01 pred470r wrote: I don't think that this will catch-up in other places because if it does in a way you can just steal from people and have a million year "church" sentence. And with that being said I'd choose church over jail any day.
Hmm I think you've missed the entire point of such schemes. These schemes are for: very minor crimes, most likely for someone's primary offence. A repeat offender will no doubt be chucked into jail. A murderer will hardly do "church time". A murderer will be thrown into jail.
That said, I think this is quite interesting and kinda... fresh? But the efficacy is yet to be seen. One thing we know for sure is that prison is just a place to make people more bitter and ensure inmates come out ready to transgress again.
While it is a step in the right direction it's still.... hmm, not sure how to phrase it. It is true that penalizing petty crimes with jail time can turn minor offenders into hardened criminals, but some form of community service would be much more preferential to church time. Also the dillema about non-christians is pretty valid, it can be seen as preferential treatment or an attempt to convert people.
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.
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.
In which case I demand to be released into the custody of the Church of my religion, icecreamtology. The church is my house and I am required by my faith to consume five pounds of icecream every sunday.
...
You obviously do not understand how separation of church and state works.
How is going to church once a week even remotely comparable to being behind bars. Sure i'd imagine it's pretty damn boring but this serves no social cause like community service would and it doesn't take away a persons freedom as punishment. This is punishing the high school bully by making him go to the library once a week, it makes little sense.
I am not a big fan of this since it is pretty much a get out of jail pass for minor crimes for a regular church-goer. It would have made more sense if it was a choice between community service and jail time.
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.
This is alabama dude they have no other types of religious facilities there. Pretty much every small southern town is like this. More churches than people. May as well use that extra space.
On September 28 2011 20:59 Vaelone wrote: Hell I'd rather go to jail than church. As you may have guessed I'm an atheist and think this is just plain dumb.
Religion shouldn't play a role in things like these in a modern society. Community service is so much better option.
I do agree with everyone who is saying there are better options. I think a combination of community service / counseling is good.
BUT, I do ardently believe that jail time / large fines for minor crimes encourage more activity, because the lives of people on the margin are already hard and fucking them in this way will just make them resent society and want revenge.
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.
Would an atheist be required to spend time in a library, for a church service on science?
Honestly a grey area if he gets to pick his church. Your alternative is standard probation, you additionally get the option of attending church. Hmm. Leaning towards the State endorsement of a religion side, however.
I would definitely choose jail. They should show an alternative. Put the convicts into university, and if they can't keep a grade average of higher than 95% they would be jailed, GL with that LawLz. Then of course I would smash in a few windows and give it a shot. Free university, woot!
Since there's no evidence at all that religious people are less likely to be criminals than non religious people I really don't understand what the intention is. It seems to me to be an ill thought out policy on the surface, less people in prison that don't need to be is fine though.
What's wrong with community service? It's basically a get out of jail for free pass as all you have to do is attend church and pretend you are listening.
Not to mention seperation of state and religion...
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.
How would it work for atheists? Go to... uhm a class in science?
Forced reading of Richard Dawkins.
Though I agree with Kwark, if for a christian church then it should be available for all major beliefs. Since it's such a small town though they could have other options as other posters pointed out, like community service for non christians.
Religion seems to again obstuct reason, why do people give the bible credit for moral code? This is literally a get out of jail free card for Christian minor offenders and it disgusts me.
On September 28 2011 21:34 Iyerbeth wrote: Since there's no evidence at all that religious people are less likely to be criminals than non religious people I really don't understand what the intention is. It seems to me to be an ill thought out policy on the surface, less people in prison that don't need to be is fine though.
I wouldn't be suprised if religious people are more likely to commit criminal offenses when compared to Atheists or other non-believers.
On September 28 2011 21:47 Crankenstein wrote: I'd rather do community service.
Doing community service you get out there and clean stuff up or fix things or whatever.
Church you just sit around hoping all the above problems will go away...
Seriously though: Community service, serve the community you have wronged.
Then again this is the south... "why should we translate the bible? English was good enough for jesus!" etc...
Certain crimes already require community service, but what do you think the community is based around in small towns like that? No matter what, the church will be involved. Being unwilling to make a compromise and pretending that the church doesn't exist or benefit the community is just as intolerant and problematic as things like celibacy policies from the Catholic Church in Africa.
Given how bad the jail system is and how little it does to prevent repeat offenders, I think this is a genuinely good idea. Intermediary institutions like this are exactly the type of assistance that many communities and cities need, because the public infrastructure is too distant, too rigid or too weak to handle things properly.
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.
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.
How would it work for atheists? Go to... uhm a class in science?
Don't think you get a choice about it. I think this is a good idea for all the teenage delinquents because they aren't put in a bad environment prematurely.
I would love to go to church than any American prison.
America's prisons are hell on earth.
Also, its nice that someone who smoked a little bit of weed or something and got busted by some asshole cop isn't stuck in the same place as violent rapists or murderers.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
I think this is an amazing idea. And that's despite me being an atheist. For people talking about community service, this is for crimes "above" that. Thinks that serve a bigger punishment. And in all honesty i don't think a whole lot of people would like going to the church every weekend for a year, plus checking in on the police station.
yeah, pretty gross violation of separation of church and state. should be shot down soon enough. The supreme court has long held the opinion of striking down any government affiliation with religion, even if it doesn't support one religion vs. another.
this spoiler below is not my writing, but stolen from a lawyer on another forum I go to. Pretty much good thoughts that I agree with, and it also is a response to OP's statement of overcrowding prisons--this policy doesn't actually do anything to combat overcrowding. It just strips away normal secular ways such as traditional community service (cnn article, and others, say that it's "go to jail, pay fine, or church" indicating stripping secular community service). + Show Spoiler +
"...virtually every other court at this level (municipal court, where the offenses generally range from parking offenses to minor trespassing) in the country try to not overcrowd jails on minor, non-violent offenses.They do this by fines and conventional community service. This judge is just taking away conventional community service as an alternative to jail and substituting in religious attendance. Its not like he is coming up with an alternative to jail (everyone else already has) - he is coming up with a religious twist to community service, stripping away the secular alternatives offered everywhere else that is not Southern Alabammy.
Plus, most conventional alternatives to jail are generally a lump sum community service that does not keep you on the hook for 52 consecutive weeks (offering a great opportunity to fail), but rather you work off hours as you have time to fulfill them, getting off the hook in a few weeks or months rather than 52 chances to fail and either end up in jail or on the hook for however much church this judge wants to tack on."
On September 28 2011 22:23 Aelip wrote: For people talking about community service, this is for crimes "above" that. Thinks that serve a bigger punishment.
but its not. it's misdemeanors and minor nonviolent crimes.
Sounds like people are afraid it might work better than jail. I mean, is America, as a whole, really that encouraged by the numbers we see concerning jail? Why are we so afraid to try this out?
Some of you are acting like people can just abuse this forever. I really doubt that will be the case. It's most probably like community service instead of a speeding ticket. It only works the first time.
On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote: As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included)
I know this was not your point, but it's a bit oxymoronic to call atheism a religion. "Belief system", maybe.
On topic: hmm, it may or not be a good idea, but about the whole "this doesn't violate the principle of separation of church and state because it's optional", this seems like a slippery slope. It raises the interesting philosophical question of what the distinction really is between "optional" and "involuntary". After all, from one point of view, when I hold a gun to your head, I'm just presenting you with alternatives. Here the alternative is jail, rather than death, but at what point have you crossed the line into coercion?
The Federal government plays similar games with its mandate when it uses the Commerce Clause to circumvent restrictions on its power. Again, no opinion about whether the actual things it does with that are good or bad, but the fence that guards that slippery slope has been breached.
On September 28 2011 22:41 couches wrote: Are people missing the whole optional part of it?
The thread title even implies it.
optional has nothing to do with it. the supreme court has long held in other cases that options do not mean anything. When cases about prayer/religion come up, it doesn't matter if you have a "choice" to not participate in the prayer/religion. The state is still supporting a religious endeavor.
I could be a judge and say you could go to one christian church or serve in prison, and you'd still have a "choice" in the matter. Now this ruling is the same principle, just extending the "choice" to be multiple places of worship (and we get into a whole hassle of what a place of worship would be; could I claim to go to a pastafarian church every week, where I eat spaghetti, and that passes?).
Choice has nothing to do with it. The bottom line is that someone of the state (a judge in the judicial system) is promoting religious activities, and that is unconstitutional.
edit- public school relevant since that is a state entity. The analogy is the state (by which I mean government) even semi-endorsing religion in any form. So a judge is a part of the state as well, and a judge's actions reflect the state supporting religious attendance (even i it is a "choice" or "voluntary").
For some people this may be a better alternative to jail, as they can be "fixed" by the church/find religion/whatever, but for those who dont believe in religion or just ignore the help the church offers, They could end up back on the streets in the same state they were in before being arrested.
Pretty much completely depends on how religious the people of that small city are.
I don't like it, but only time will tell if it is truly effective.
I'd far prefer they used community service instead of church, but since it's 'just' a small town, could be a good experiment for the next few years/decades. I may be playing to a false stereotype, if so sorry, but a lot of America seems to be religious in one way or another, so if this works anywhere I guess it would be there
For minor crimes I see no reason to put people behind bars where they will be surrounded by other people involved in crime for however long. I'd rather they worked and perhaps gained some new skills helping out around the city under close supervision
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.
eh.. atheism is not a religion. you might want to edit that out.
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.
eh.. atheism is not a religion. you might want to edit that out.
Lets just not get into this argument, it usually ends up in a lot of mad people and a lot of temp bans.
On September 28 2011 22:54 ilovelings wrote: If I recall correctly, during vietnam, you were given the option to serve in the war instead of going to jail.
Besides going against precedent, I'm pretty sure the alabama judge doesn't want someone to be able to claim going to a pastafarian church service every week would count as "church" attendance. The "choice" of exercising the religion of your choice gets severely restricted, i.e. isn't actually a real "choice". The military example shows that even if you want to make one choice, the possibility can be shut off to you, forcing you to go to jail.
again, I stress this ruling doesn't actually solve anything about overcrowding or costs. According to news articles, it's being presented as jail vs fine vs church, while by far most court systems already have secular community service options in place.
It's not even saving cost for the police by delegating keeping track of whether the criminal attends or not to the churches--the article says how a person would have to check in with a police officer. You may as well just have the criminal do work for X organisation, like salvation army or something, and then check in with a police officer to confirm he did his community service.
I understand the principle behind it. The idea is that many non-violent criminals simply need rehabilitation rather than punishment. Our prison system in Canada tends to take this approach (we'll see how long that lasts with the idiot running the country right now)
However, I don't see the church as a legitimate viable option for rehabilitation. Yes, in theory, it teaches many of the same « life lessons »/values that the criminals need to learn, but I don't think it's quite on the same level as government-structured rehabilitation could be.
I get it though, it's just a way to save a buck on these facilities by using infrastructure that is already in place.
It's difficult for me to say in words how straight up horrible of an idea this is - even as an "alternative".
In the majority of cases, given the alternatives, convicts will pick the "easier" way out, given the choice. Do you want to spend a month in jail, or go back to your normal life immediately and just hang out at church once a week for a brief period of time? Unless you're very serious about sticking to your principles, obviously the latter is the more convenient solution. This is the same problem as with the flogging-or-jail thing from that other thread - just because it's optional, it doesn't make it ethical, especially if the system encourages you to pick that option by making it objectively more convenient and appealing. This is an active encouragement for people who find themselves in that situation to get involved with religion.
Secondly, what is the reasoning behind this anyway? People do not contribute to society in any meaningful way by attending church, nor is church a valid correctional and rehabilitation facility.
Finally, while the crimes may be nonviolent (which doesn't necessarily mean it's any less harmful), these people have still committed them. If I were stuck living in that town, I would certainly not feel very comfortable about these people essentially being given a free pass and being submitted to religious indoctrination on top.
On September 28 2011 23:22 KSMB wrote: Well, they are recognizing what millions of children have known for centuries, church is a form of punishment.
Very intelligent. "I better steal everything I can, if I get caught all that happens is I need to go to church". This is such an effective way to prevent crimes.
On September 28 2011 23:16 stormtemplar wrote: Even as a christian, I applaud the spirit of the law, but not the content. Churches are not meant to be rehabilitation centers for people who commit crimes. They don't try to serve that purpose and thus will fail. If this one does it will probably lose a lot of members who don't feel their church is right for them anymore.
Hold on a minute.
The purpose of church is sinners getting forgiveness and learn to live their lives in a better way, is it not? But here you are saying that people are going to start being NIMBYs in church because they don't want to pray with criminals?
That certainly doesn't sound very Christian to me.
On September 28 2011 20:01 pred470r wrote: I don't think that this will catch-up in other places because if it does in a way you can just steal from people and have a million year "church" sentence. And with that being said I'd choose church over jail any day.
Buglary and Robbery are classified as violent crimes in the US, and I'm pretty sure many other places as well too.
It's a good idea, who knows what will happen if the poor souls start thinking that whatever crime they did was their fault. No, it was Satan. Unless the convicts are not Christian, that's when it's definitely their fault, like everything else that is wrong with the world.
You are welcome, and drop a coin in the collection box on your way out, you know how God is always broke.
So many variables...location, type of crime/criminal, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and on and on make this ineffective over a broad spectrum. It's a good idea and it may very well work for a such a small town with such a high concentration of Christians but it's definitely not going to work elsewhere without major revisions. Like the general idea of rehabilitation though, at least they are doing something about it.
On September 28 2011 23:38 HwangjaeTerran wrote: It's a good idea, who knows what will happen if the poor souls start thinking that whatever crime they did was their fault. No, it was Satan. Unless the convicts are not Christian, that's when it's definitely their fault, like everything else that is wrong with the world.
You are welcome, and drop a coin in the collection box on your way out, you know how God is always broke.
Peace
One of the more ignorant posts I've seen in quite some time, it's always good to read through topics where religion is mentioned and get a few good laughs at the morons.
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.
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 optional alternative to jail or fines.
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.
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.
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.
I have. See my above post. Seems to be a lot of stupid in this thread if they can't see that it's a blatant ploy to get people into church. A vast majority of people will not choose jail. Hell, probably all of them.
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.
I have. See my above post. Seems to be a lot of stupid in this thread if they can't see that it's a blatant ploy to get people into church. A vast majority of people will not choose jail. Hell, probably none of them.
Better to offer options instead of incarcerating first time drug offenders. Best to offer programs for responsible use and rehabilitation from drug use but you take what you get.
Is it blurring the line between Church and State? Yeah. Not enough to make me uncomfortable though. Also I don't think you're forced to believe in Jesus, just attend.
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.
What about atheists? I am offended by this policy, because it presumes religiosity is a way to atone for criminal behavior.
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?)
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?
On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote: This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat.
Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines.
If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp.
So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know.
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote: This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
Edit for clarification: The word translated "sorcery" is the Greek word pharmakeia from which we get the English word "pharmacy." The primary meaning is "the use or the administering of drugs" (usually associated with sorcery or idolatry).
Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote: Didn't see a thread on this.
A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).
The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).
This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.
But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.
And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.
What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.
Even if the criminal who agrees to go to church is an atheist as well it doesn't matter. The overall message of Church is bullshit (imo). There is no God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell. But every moral behind a story and the Ten Commandments are all things we should follow. Now, do I think this will change even non-violent criminals? Perhaps a few, so why not try it?
On September 28 2011 23:38 HwangjaeTerran wrote: It's a good idea, who knows what will happen if the poor souls start thinking that whatever crime they did was their fault. No, it was Satan. Unless the convicts are not Christian, that's when it's definitely their fault, like everything else that is wrong with the world.
You are welcome, and drop a coin in the collection box on your way out, you know how God is always broke.
Peace
One of the more ignorant posts I've seen in quite some time, it's always good to read through topics where religion is mentioned and get a few good laughs at the morons.
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote: This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
Condemning others. Classic.
And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote: This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat.
Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines.
If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp.
So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know.
You are literally giving me options and then telling me I don't have options. This may help you out. If you would like to continue telling me how options are not options you can PM me, otherwise, have a great day.
Church // Jail Sing songs about god. // Sing songs to comfort yourself in the shower with big ass naked dudes. Hit on the good looking girls at church. // Get hit on by your cell mate. If you do screw up, a nun or priest talks to you. // If you screw up in jail, a guard might beat you. Church events with lots of different great food and drinks. // Jail Food. Starcraft/TL/Stream/etc after church. // Barely enough internet time to check your monitored email.
I'd rather have a year of the bible shoved down my throat then getting something else shoved down it.
On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote: This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat.
Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines.
If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp.
So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
Sigh. It's disguised as one. Let's say I offer you the choice of cutting yourself with a razor blade, or poking yourself with a needle. Both options suck. A lot. But one is CLEARLY easier to deal with than the other. Which would you choose? Which would everyone choose? Unless the person being asked is a chronic self mutilator, I think we all know.
You are literally giving me options and then telling me I don't have options. This may help you out. If you would like to continue telling me how options are not options you can PM me, otherwise, have a great day.
Ah I see. Semantics. Cool story bro. Have a good one.
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote: This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
The first amendment clearly states
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say "can't force" but says it can't even make a law respecting a religion. This alabama law seems to want to do this. By the way what the hell is that about american culture being destroyed? Seems like a bit of a red herring and a hyperbole if not blatant untruth.
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote: This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
Condemning others. Classic.
And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
I'm not condemning anyone. I gave you a quote from your own book. If anything, I applaud you for not letting religion dictate every facet of your life.
On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote: Didn't see a thread on this.
A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).
The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).
This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.
But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.
And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.
What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.
Even if the criminal who agrees to go to church is an atheist as well it doesn't matter. The overall message of Church is bullshit (imo). There is no God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell. But every moral behind a story and the Ten Commandments are all things we should follow. Now, do I think this will change even non-violent criminals? Perhaps a few, so why not try it?
Well, I like the creativity behind this attempt, though I agree that it might not be the ideal alternative to jail.
I'm thinking that part of the effect would have less to do with the doctrine of the church and more to do with the socialization of the offender in a church community.
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?)
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This does not say "can't force" but says it can't even make a law respecting a religion. This alabama law seems to want to do this. By the way what the hell is that about american culture being destroyed? Seems like a bit of a red herring and a hyperbole if not blatant untruth.
They just need to offer alternatives for other religions. Not for everything, but for a few.
There's a lot of angst in this thread, especially from people assuming it's an automatic brain washing tool, as if adults wouldn't have the power to resist it on their own. Public policy is about compromise for overall benefit, and this can likely be a positive compromise over a substandard prison system. Making it spiritual and community based aids the rehabilitation process.
What if that person already went to church on a weekly basis? This program makes the silly mistake of assuming that people who commit crimes aren't religious (when in fact religious people are over-represented in prison populations). If they'd go to church anyways it's basically like there's no punishment at all.
While I completely agree with lessening jailtime, sending them to church instead is kind of... weird. You're not really helping anyone, and if you don't actually believe in God, you're just snoozing there once a week instead of actually paying for your crimes. While everything is better than jail (because that's actually proven to increase recurrence of crimes, especially after non-violent ones) it's a weird alternative, what if you already go to church once a week? What happens then? Do you just get a pass on minor crimes? What's wrong with community service?
On September 29 2011 00:15 YumYumGranola wrote: What if that person already went to church on a weekly basis? This program makes the silly mistake of assuming that people who commit crimes aren't religious (when in fact religious people are over-represented in prison populations). If they'd go to church anyways it's basically like there's no punishment at all.
You're making the silly mistake of assuming that people who are religious attend Church.
You have no idea what the program consists of, and if you read the article (which, knowing TL, 98% of you didn't) the reasoning is sound. The main appeal of the method is longevity, because programs for minor drug offenses only last a month, if that, whereas this will be an entire year of regularly attending the church and meeting with a pastor and the police.
On September 29 2011 00:19 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: While I completely agree with lessening jailtime, sending them to church instead is kind of... weird. You're not really helping anyone, and if you don't actually believe in God, you're just snoozing there once a week instead of actually paying for your crimes. What if you already go to church once a week? What happens then? It's just weird.
You can get a lot out of religion without having faith. The morality taught by different sects of humanism and religion are all the same and aside from some extreme examples, no pastor or rabbi is going to have an ethics dialogue with nothing but "God's will" as the reasoning.
It's probably just a small town in the middle of nowhere, and they mean if you get in a bar fight you can choose to go to church to prove to the defendant and/or the county that you have repaid your debt by opting into going to church instead of the other ways to repay debts.
America was founded on the freedom of cities and communities to govern ourselves inside of a constitutional republic. If this county wishes to initiate this program and its accepted by a majority of the citizens, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
On September 28 2011 20:50 Eternalmisfit wrote: I am not a big fan of this since it is pretty much a get out of jail pass for minor crimes for a regular church-goer. It would have made more sense if it was a choice between community service and jail time.
That's really funny, i read this article on CNN yesterday and thought it was a good idea. But that point kind of changed my mind.
But then again anything that reduces the amount of ppl in US prison system can't be the WORST thing ever @_@
On September 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.
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.
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.
Im pretty certain that they would have to accommodate every religion to legally implement this. if your excluding anyone based on religion, it's very likely illegal. Maybe im flat out wrong but im pretty sure some federal civil rights legislation covers this sort of thing.
If that is the case, and the program needs to accommodate everyone regardless of religion, then I don't see how this could work out practically. Atheists would obviously have no where to go (unless for the purposes of the law you included atheist club meetings or whatever they have). I am very curious to see what happens to this program, im pretty sure it will be challenged in court, I wonder if it will stand the constitutional test.
In my personal opinion, I like that they are trying to introduce people to strong communities rather then throwing them in jail or some in and out drug program.
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.
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 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.
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.
On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote: Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator
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.
Don't you mean in age of fervent secular reactionism and fervent anti-religious anti-intellectual bigotry...?
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.
How is giving people a choice between jail and church a government endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over others...
Unless "Church is better than jail" is an endorsement or establishment of a particular religion over others... is jail a religion?
The constitution doesnt' say "Congress shall only make laws that respect establishments of religion equally and fairly"
You're right, it doesn't.
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.
Unfortunately the lack of understanding of the Establishment Clause exists more within you than anywhere else
Establishment of religion means an official state religion either through direct proclamation or policies, such as preferential treatment of that physical manifestations of that church, or discriminatory policies against those not of that religion, or a religious tax, or what have you.
It has nothing to do with giving people choices that include religious-based ones.
There are certain practical realities concerning the capacity of religious institutions to be helpful in solving social problems that cannot be ignored, and this has nothing to do with indoctrination in their beliefs. It has to do with their financial and property resources, their capacity to gather and distribute charity, and that these institutions advocate, along with their own particular beliefs, certain general principles as to how to behave towards your fellow man that no one reasonable objects to.
I'd feel much safer having an evangelical Christian running the country than you, I'd be very afraid of what would happen to religious people and anyone who doesn't hate them with you in charge, to be honest. Just what would "Church back the fuck off" mean in your America?
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.
How would it work for atheists? Go to... uhm a class in science?
Because science is a religious institution where atheists go to worship? What?
Anyways, seems like a bad idea because in a lot of cases, it really isn't a form of punishment. When I used to go to church they gave us free breakfast and we just sat and listened to people talk or watched videos the whole time. The only punishing part about it would being forced to be "bored", which hardly compares to jail time or a large fine.
I suppose it's not as bad if the state isn't paying for their breakfast since you don't actually spend tax money on feeding people who break the law, the private church does.
So, better for tax payers, but probably too good a deal for the prisoner. It's in no way a legitimate form of justice to punish someone by making them go to church.
On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote: Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator/such a boss.....
While Jibba is indeed a boss, I'm sure he recognizes that his opinion is as much a topic to be replied to as anyone else's o.O It's all about respect; same with everyone else's posts.
what about penal colonies? in the star trek utopian society there are penal colonies and they seem to do the job for both victims, criminals and contribute to the society at large.
On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote: This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it.
Condemning others. Classic.
And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
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?
On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote: [quote]
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 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? Really? And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative.
As for actual information, I would point you first to the letter the ACLU wrote on the issue, which quotes very specific supreme court decisions (as if it's necessary) to make the point. (letter)
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.
Also, in good news, the town has backed off the obviously stupid program.
Anyways, seems like a bad idea because in a lot of cases, it really isn't a form of punishment. When I used to go to church they gave us free breakfast and we just sat and listened to people talk or watched videos the whole time. The only punishing part about it would being forced to be "bored", which hardly compares to jail time or a large fine.
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.
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...
Saying "Profess a belief in God weekly or else we will put you in jail" doesn't promote a specific religious message? Really? And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative.
Attending church = professing a belief in God?
Does being court-ordered to attend AA/NA mean you are being court-ordered to profess a belief in the Twelve Steps?
I think the problem is not that the people against this don't like people being forced into religious belief, they just don't like religious belief or people with it in the first place.
On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote: Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator/such a boss.....
While Jibba is indeed a boss, I'm sure he recognizes that his opinion is as much a topic to be replied to as anyone else's o.O It's all about respect; same with everyone else's posts.
I would just as soon join a religion as I would punish someone I was discussing/arguing with over a news topic. :x
On September 29 2011 02:01 archonOOid wrote: what about penal colonies? in the star trek utopian society there are penal colonies and they seem to do the job for both victims, criminals and contribute to the society at large.
aren't those just futuristic versions of australia?
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 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? Really? And the article says nothing at all about there being community service as an alternative.
As for actual information, I would point you first to the letter the ACLU wrote on the issue, which quotes very specific supreme court decisions (as if it's necessary) to make the point. (letter)
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.
Also, in good news, the town has backed off the obviously stupid program.
from that article
"section 3 of the Alabama Constitution, which provides that 'no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship."
well that seems pretty clear to me :/ Even if the church attendance is an optional punishment it may very well fall under compulsion to attend. I guess the lawyers will have to argue about the meaning of "compelled" in this instance.
I am ok with this if: By "church" they mean any religious gathering place, for example a synagogue or mosque. add secular institutions, for example library.
Giving the church monopoly on redemption is just disgusting.
Also, there is the chance that they are already going to church. this is basically saying: "its ok to be criminal as long as you are Christians". giving Christians a special option is discriminating.
Anyways, seems like a bad idea because in a lot of cases, it really isn't a form of punishment. When I used to go to church they gave us free breakfast and we just sat and listened to people talk or watched videos the whole time. The only punishing part about it would being forced to be "bored", which hardly compares to jail time or a large fine.
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.
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.
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 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...
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 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.
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.
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.
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 02:02 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.
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).
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 20:05 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not angry that there isn't much variety, as someone pointed out that the town is very small and probably very few people live there. But as an atheist, little things like this get on my nerves by constantly pushing the idea that by attending church and proclaiming yourself a christian you are somehow are better, more respectable person. Religious affiliation has zero control over how you behave, and even with many examples of this people still fail to realize it more often than not.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
On September 28 2011 20:42 Nyct0 wrote: this sounds like another way to force a religion on someone, going to church once a week won't stop you commiting crime lol.
Cause putting people behind bars seems to be so effective in correcting people.
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist. It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
I'm pretty sure its also called nontheism. Unless you meant that being anti-religion was weak atheism...?
On September 28 2011 20:42 Nyct0 wrote: this sounds like another way to force a religion on someone, going to church once a week won't stop you commiting crime lol.
Cause putting people behind bars seems to be so effective in correcting people.
However effective jail/prison is or isn't, church is far less likely to work.
On September 29 2011 03:15 colossalgulp wrote: Cause putting people behind bars seems to be so effective in correcting people.
However effective jail/prison is or isn't, church is far less likely to work.
You guys all know that it's not a dichotomy, right?
Everybody's all like CHURCH OR JAIL ARRRGGGH but the choices are:
1) Rehab (which the county judge thinks isn't good enough since it's only a 30-day program) 2) Jail 3) Fines 4) Church
Yes, we know this, but colossalgulp was implying in his statement that church might be equally ineffective in rehabilitating criminals as jail time. The fines aren't relevant to that.
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist. It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
I'm pretty sure its also called nontheism. Unless you meant that being anti-religion was weak atheism...?
On September 28 2011 20:42 Nyct0 wrote: this sounds like another way to force a religion on someone, going to church once a week won't stop you commiting crime lol.
Cause putting people behind bars seems to be so effective in correcting people.
However effective jail/prison is or isn't, church is far less likely to work.
If you looked up the terms before trying to correct people you would know what they mean. Atheism does not mean "anti-religion" at all, it is simply the lack of belief in a god.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Yes, because the first line of that post was the height of seriousness. I realizes sarcasm/tone is harder comprehend when presented it written form, but really, that one seemed pretty obvious to me.
i'll take this over going to jail. i'm atheist but grew up going to church. going to church for me is no different than going to, say a retail store meeting.
no need for anti-religion towards this issue honestly. a smart man will go to church because it means nothing, i dont see how any atheist can be threatened by this, if anything, it can be taken advantage of regardless of religious belief.
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist. It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
I'm pretty sure its also called nontheism. Unless you meant that being anti-religion was weak atheism...?
On September 29 2011 03:15 colossalgulp wrote:
On September 28 2011 20:42 Nyct0 wrote: this sounds like another way to force a religion on someone, going to church once a week won't stop you commiting crime lol.
Cause putting people behind bars seems to be so effective in correcting people.
However effective jail/prison is or isn't, church is far less likely to work.
If you looked up the terms before trying to correct people you would know what they mean. Atheism does not mean "anti-religion" at all, it is simply the lack of belief in a god.
It's the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. The lack of a belief in god is nontheism.
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.
In which case I demand to be released into the custody of the Church of my religion, icecreamtology. The church is my house and I am required by my faith to consume five pounds of icecream every sunday.
...
You obviously do not understand how separation of church and state works.
I frequent the Church of Aiur. Is there a Church of Aiur in Alabama?
I think its amusing that going to church is seen as equivalent to jail time...but I suppose in this case its really about rehabilitation rather than deterrence. I am curious why the ACLU is so against it...its an option, no one is forcing them to go to church. But perhaps the thinking is that, its such an easy, lesser sentence than jail time or paying a fine, that the local authorities are essentially supporting intervention through religion rather than through typical methods.
I guess it depends what they teach at the church. But its hard to believe that they won't involve Jesus/God in some way, and try to influence the people forced to go there through religious arguments.
I don't know where to stand on this issue. I know these people are grown adults, and can think for themselves...but still a lot of people can be easily influenced, especially if they're still young adults. At the same time, reading Jibba's posts, if they have almost no resources at their disposal, the risk of such influence may be a small price to pay if the message is a good one overall.
I just hope that this won't be used as a case to allow the same thing to happen in other municipalities on larger scales. Having an increasingly intertwined church and state is a scary idea, even if the end result is unlikely.
The online time i've been to church was because my stepgrandmother saw me playing D2 while babysitting me, and forced me to go as "punishment" because apparently it isn't in line with her ideas of catholisism. I got kicked out for being loud and saying it was boring. Jail it is i guess..
Honestly. It's a better idea than jailing people for non-violent offenses. I can see the ACLU's point but even being an atheist myself I just see it as a practical solution to what comes down to a budget crisis.
On September 29 2011 04:18 radscorpion9 wrote: I think its amusing that going to church is seen as equivalent to jail time...but I suppose in this case its really about rehabilitation rather than deterrence. I am curious why the ACLU is so against it...its an option, no one is forcing them to go to church. But perhaps the thinking is that, its such an easy, lesser sentence than jail time or paying a fine, that the local authorities are essentially supporting intervention through religion rather than through typical methods.
I guess its depends what they teach at the church. But its hard to believe that they won't involve Jesus/God in some way, and try to influence the people forced to go there through religious arguments.
I don't know where to stand on this issue. I know these people are grown adults, and can think for themselves...but still a lot of people can be easily influenced, especially if they're still young adults. At the same time, reading Jibba's posts, if they have almost no resources at their disposal, the risk of such influence may be a small price to pay if the message is a good one overall.
I just hope that this won't be used as a case to allow the same thing to happen in other municipalities on larger scales. Having an increasingly intertwined church and state is a scary idea, even if the end result is unlikely.
What else would they teach at church to a person who opts for this sentence?
On September 29 2011 04:18 radscorpion9 wrote: I think its amusing that going to church is seen as equivalent to jail time...but I suppose in this case its really about rehabilitation rather than deterrence. I am curious why the ACLU is so against it...its an option, no one is forcing them to go to church. But perhaps the thinking is that, its such an easy, lesser sentence than jail time or paying a fine, that the local authorities are essentially supporting intervention through religion rather than through typical methods.
I guess its depends what they teach at the church. But its hard to believe that they won't involve Jesus/God in some way, and try to influence the people forced to go there through religious arguments.
I don't know where to stand on this issue. I know these people are grown adults, and can think for themselves...but still a lot of people can be easily influenced, especially if they're still young adults. At the same time, reading Jibba's posts, if they have almost no resources at their disposal, the risk of such influence may be a small price to pay if the message is a good one overall.
I just hope that this won't be used as a case to allow the same thing to happen in other municipalities on larger scales. Having an increasingly intertwined church and state is a scary idea, even if the end result is unlikely.
What else would they teach at church to a person who opts for this sentence?
I was reading some of Jibba's posts earlier. He made the point about how a lot of the church's teachings can have a lot in common with humanism, and the basic ideals of being a good neighbor, treating others as you would like to be treated, etc. If they can avoid the whole "Jesus is your lord and savior, repent before the lord!!" stuff, and stick to the ethical arguments about how following the teachings of God is good for you not because God said so, but because it leads to positive opportunities...then it wouldn't be so bad.
On September 29 2011 04:30 Coutcha wrote: That's fucking unfair to non-catholic people...
I think its a matter of practicality. They don't have a church for one of each type of religion sitting in a nice circular formation for people to choose each morning . I think as others have mentioned this is the result of not having enough funding during a budget crisis. And if that's not true, another argument is that it may simply be a better form of rehabilitation than their other typical strategies (jail time/fining). The world ain't a perfect place
Two of my friends have been to prison both for drug offenses. All prison did was made it worse. One was in for 5 the other for 3. They both came out worse than before they came in. Prison basically just forces criminals to be criminals behind bars and when they leave they take that mentality with them(not all but many). I believe that if church makes them want to be better people then yes it is a good idea. I am no longer a christian although I was for many years; and if these people will obey the basic principles of helping the weak and needy and living a life free of murder thievery and lies. Then who cares if the religion is real or not if you believe it and it makes you a better person than it is a good thing.
On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote: Didn't see a thread on this.
A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).
The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).
This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.
But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.
And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.
What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.
I just wanted to point that out you're not doing much to prevent anything here :\
The more likely scenario is that they will just continue doing what they are doing with the minor inconvenience of going to church for an hour and a half a week.
If the church actually made people want to be better people, 80% of the prison population wouldn't be Christian.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.
Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.
I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.
Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.
The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.
It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.
Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.
I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.
Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.
The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.
It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.
Just my three cents.
I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this.
It's such an obvious violation of the establishment clause that I'm surprised the officials in Alabama even tried it. It's about as bad as a news article I read recently about a California couple who got fined for not having a permit to hold a bible study in their own home. That ordinance is sure to be struck down for free exercise AND right to assembly.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
On September 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.
Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.
I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.
Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.
The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.
It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.
Just my three cents.
I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this.
Fair enough, but it just results in you falling to their level. Especially when those frustrations are vented against someone or something who might of had nothing to do with that particular person's ignorance or attitude. However I would note that you shouldn't feel the need to persuade people of religions lack of basis in actual fact. Alternatively when attempting to present such an argument try to frame it in a manner that doesn't come across as dismissive. As by doing so you can easily induce the kind of stonewall attitude that you seem to be so frustrated by. To truly convince people of the merits of your point of view you often need to present your opinion in a metered and amicable fashion.
On September 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.
Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.
I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.
Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.
The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.
It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.
Just my three cents.
I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this.
Fair enough, but it just results in you falling to their level. Especially when those frustrations are vented against someone or something who might of had nothing to do with that particular person's ignorance or attitude. However I would note that you shouldn't feel the need to persuade people of religions lack of basis in actual fact. Alternatively when attempting to present such an argument try to frame it in a manner that doesn't come across as dismissive. As by doing so you can easily induce the kind of stonewall attitude that you seem to be so frustrated by. To truly convince people of the merits of your point of view you often need to present your opinion in a metered and amicable fashion.
I personally didn't react so strongly in this thread. I was just saying what I suspected was their reason, without condoning it. I also don't try to persuade people by talking down to them; I know nobody likes condescension. Regardless, people will usually react negatively even if you present your opinion on religion in a friendly way.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
i have a question on that matter,
as far as i understand, "there is no god" is atheism "there probably is no god" is agnostic atheism "there is god but not related to any religion we're aware of" is agnosticism
am i understanding it correctly? for that reason i've always labeled myself as agnostic atheist.
On September 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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
i have a question on that matter,
as far as i understand, "there is no god" is atheism "there probably is no god" is agnostic atheism "there is god but not related to any religion we're aware of" is agnosticism
am i understanding it correctly? for that reason i've always labeled myself as agnostic atheist.
To be agnostic is to be uncertain of whether or not there is a god. It's the neutral position.
On September 29 2011 04:35 rhmiller907 wrote: Two of my friends have been to prison both for drug offenses. All prison did was made it worse. One was in for 5 the other for 3. They both came out worse than before they came in. Prison basically just forces criminals to be criminals behind bars and when they leave they take that mentality with them(not all but many). I believe that if church makes them want to be better people then yes it is a good idea. I am no longer a christian although I was for many years; and if these people will obey the basic principles of helping the weak and needy and living a life free of murder thievery and lies. Then who cares if the religion is real or not if you believe it and it makes you a better person than it is a good thing.
Just beacuse it brutalizes individuals does not mean they should be allowed to attend church as an alternative... Make it non-frontline military service or some other community service.. Otherwise it's clearly the state giving unfair benefits to one religion over another.
And what if that individual attended church on a regular basis already.. He can sell all the drugs he damn wants and nothing changes for him.
Churches should fuck off and mind their own business. Honestly, why the fuck do religious people constantly try to jam their agenda into matters of law?
I have no problem with anyone from any religion but come the fuck on. If a crime is so serious you can send a guy to CHURCH for it, there probably shouldn't be any punishment at all. So it's just a local church siphoning power from the local government.
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?)
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
When most people say atheism (myself included) they really mean nontheism, where they do not believe in any god or religion, but does not explicitly say that neither could exist. Atheism more literally means "anti-religion".
You're defining a specific form of atheism known as "weak-atheism". That in no way is the definition of "atheism" as a whole. Atheism is simply the belief that a deity/deities do not exist (the actual literal meaning of it). It says nothing about whether or not that belief is based on certainty or not, which requires you to define a more specific form of atheism to do so.
On September 29 2011 03:05 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 29 2011 03:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
On September 29 2011 02:57 cydial wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote:
On September 28 2011 22:12 cydial wrote: [quote]
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
The thing you describe as "Weak" Atheism is properly know as Agnostic Atheism. Your choice in adjective is pretty negative.
Really though if I could just put my thoughts out on this thread at large.
I find when people who consider themselves atheists get involved in discussion about religion on the internet. There is such a intellectual high ground that they believe to have established. That no-one who could be described as moderate in their beliefs would ever want to interact with them. Honestly as an Agnostic I feel like I'm being patronized just reading through a good portion of the posts in this thread. Basically the tone that results is just such an us against them and they are already wrong so shut your trap and listen to what I say attitude that I really have absolutely no taste for.
Stop at least to think that throughout the course of history and up into the present. Many highly intelligent individuals have been people of faith, including a good number of great scientific minds. While of course that doesn't necessarily make their beliefs correct. It really doesn't come off as very respectful to be so dismissive and negative in your tone towards something that they valued so highly.
The religious leaders of a small community who believe that through their guidance(and that of the lord I suppose) they can reform petty criminals better than the judicial system. Don't really come off to me as a group of hard-line anti secular crusaders. Thus the sheer volume of vitriol shown in this thread just really doesn't come off to me as a healthy or rational response to their actions. Especially from a group of people who could probably be described, comparatively speaking to the population at large, as highly educated.
It's fine to disagree even vehemently, just consider your tone and the words you use when having these conversations.
Just my three cents.
I suspect these reactions are not in response to the events stated in the OP, but rather because of our own personal experiences talking to religious people about religion. So many of them are instantly dismissive of reasonable arguments, present illogical arguments of their own, or feign a moral high ground and look down upon atheists. Attempting to persuade people that their religion has no logical basis (or anything that a person strongly believes in) is almost always a fruitless attempt, and that might lead to some people being bitter and venting in threads like this.
Fair enough, but it just results in you falling to their level. Especially when those frustrations are vented against someone or something who might of had nothing to do with that particular person's ignorance or attitude. However I would note that you shouldn't feel the need to persuade people of religions lack of basis in actual fact. Alternatively when attempting to present such an argument try to frame it in a manner that doesn't come across as dismissive. As by doing so you can easily induce the kind of stonewall attitude that you seem to be so frustrated by. To truly convince people of the merits of your point of view you often need to present your opinion in a metered and amicable fashion.
I personally didn't react so strongly in this thread. I was just saying what I suspected was their reason, without condoning it. I also don't try to persuade people by talking down to them; I know nobody likes condescension. Regardless, people will usually react negatively even if you present your opinion on religion in a friendly way.
Again I can definitely sympathize with what you're expressing. When I presented my responses my primary choice in pronoun was "you" which was really incorrect in what I was trying to get across. I could've spoke more generally, because it would have been more in line with what I was trying to make my point about.
Not so much, "you" (Demonhunter04) as, "we" (everyone) could try to approach people with opposing viewpoints, especially around such a touchy subject, with a little more patience.
Sorry, lol I'm not that great with English. Sometimes these things slip my mind.
Edit: Damn I sound way to much like a 78 year old grandma than a man my age ought too, haha.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're right that lack of belief is not the same as agnosticism, but someone who argues a strong form of agnosticism would obviously not have a belief on the matter either. That's just one form of agnosticism and not a definitive trait though so you were right to criticize it in that regard pre-edit.
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.
Wait. Since when is atheism a religion? Agnosticism, Satanism (traditional, not the organized Church of Satan variety), Buddhism, etc i see as alternatives to religion, whereas athiesm is the absence of belief, no?
Anyway, i see it as a nice alternative, as long as you may attend any religion's church. Therein lies the problem of what defines a real church, and why this is a no go. Jail is jail. Religion isn't defined.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
On September 29 2011 09:33 Cloud9157 wrote: This seems reasonable.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
How is that reasonable? It's clearly the lesser punishment. No one is even arguing that you'd be forced to go. Rather, it's more like "you can get away with breaking the law/other minor offenses if you attend church regularly. If you choose not to go to church, we will imprison you/fine you extensively."
On September 29 2011 09:33 Cloud9157 wrote: This seems reasonable.
If this were forced, I would be entirely against it. I know the ACLU only tries to protect the Bill of Rights, but frankly, the key word is "optional". If there is an option, the Bill of Rights doesn't mean anything. You CHOOSE to go to church, it isn't forced upon you.
The claim that it's a "choice" between jail and church is a joke. Any idiot would pick sitting in a church once a week for a year than going to jail. Hell, I'd pretend to be a Christian if it got me out of a jail sentence. If I offered to give you $10 or $1000, which would you take? I'm giving you a choice, but it's not really a choice. It's a no-brainer. It's cases like these where the unconstitutionality comes into play- the government is *compelling* prisoners to move towards a particular religion. Though it's not *forced*, per se, there's not *really* a choice.
Anyways, if you think Christianity is a load of bullshit like I do, then you won't gain anything from going but rather tune it out. Not to mention that you're not going to learn anything valuable by hearing Genesis, or reading Job.
It's not separation of Church and State? My ass. If the policy says that I can go to temple, a mosque, or to the local buddhist temple then it'll be legit. If it remains exclusive to church, then it's quite obviously bullshit...
Also, isn't this quite directly stating that Church > State. It undermines the government and replaces it with religion, correct?
On September 29 2011 09:50 QurtStarcraft wrote: I see it as teaching morals so eh
Based off supernatural nonsense? I don't support that in the slightest.
Also, there's certainly no reason to think that this will rehabilitate people any more than a jail would, and it doesn't punish criminals at all.
If you're going to make changes to the penal system so that jails will have fewer criminals, how about you force them to enroll in some sort of school so that they can become educated and functioning members of society? They can pay for everything too. Knowledge, rehabilitation, and not wasting money ftw.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're right that lack of belief is not the same as agnosticism, but someone who argues a strong form of agnosticism would obviously not have a belief on the matter either. That's just one form of agnosticism and not a definitive trait though so you were right to criticize it in that regard pre-edit.
I disagree strongly. I know that there are no supernatural deities that exist. Nothing supernatural of any kind in fact. The basis for all religious belief is completely man made. The very foundations of religious faith have their roots in human beings. The "divine" experiences were experienced by people. The supposed prophets, preachers, etc etc were all human beings. Every holy book has been written by people. There is nothing that even remotely implies supernatural involvement. Quite literally all you have, is a bunch of ancient people who were completely ignorant of their world trying to make sense of it all. The very fact that there are a plethora of religions today, and that we laugh at what ancient peoples like the Egyptians or Romans believed tells me unequivocally that it is all made up. The evidence is there. Boatloads of it. In the form of fallible humanity, poorly translated texts, contradictions, and complete lack of anything approaching verifiable claims or data that can be analyzed.
Therefore I consider atheism to be pretty damn concrete.
Tl;DR: I know there are no gods in the same way everyone else knows there are no unicorns. People made them up, and there is no evidence for their existence. Sure we could have faith that there are unicorns, but that doesn't make them real does it?
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too.
disbelief noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
disbelieve verb (used with object) 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. verb (used without object) 2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
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.
Atheism isn't a religion....
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too.
disbelief noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
disbelieve verb (used with object) 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. verb (used without object) 2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false.
One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference.
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too.
disbelief noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
disbelieve verb (used with object) 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. verb (used without object) 2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false.
One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference.
so when asked if there is a good weak atheists just refuse to answer the question? your example seems to be more agnostic about life on mars rather than differing atheisms
On September 28 2011 22:23 DminusTerran wrote: [quote]
Yeah it is. I believe its core theology is acting like a dick to everyone who self identifies as a religious person. Here take this pamphlet.
Seriously though I'm not a religious person but I can see the merit in this if the person was seriously practicing the tenets of their faith. I mean believing you'll have to do penance in hell/purgatory for your life of crime is probably pretty good motivation to stop. My problem with this system is it seems pretty easy to abuse. But w/e there's no past history of people abusing religious power amirite? Oh wait...
You should look up atheism and then realize how silly you and other people are being for saying a lack of belief is in itself a belief....
Atheism isn't a religion, but it does involve belief, or if you want you could call it "disbelief". Either way, it's an assertion about the nature of reality.
Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be agnosticism, in which the lack of belief is an admittance of ignorance.
You've managed to show that you misunderstand both atheism and agnosticism. Well done, sir.
You've managed to make a post that would be equivalent to me saying:
"You are wrong and don't understand what you just said. Well done sir."
So, it doesn't really require me to refute it since it provided no insight whatsoever, just a personal insult to my understanding.
Indeed it was a personal insult, and I apologize. Though you must understand that this topic has been discussed to death on teamliquid and it is rather frustrating to see people still get it so, so wrong.
You seem to think that agnosticism is some sort of third way between theism and atheism, but that's not what it is at all. Atheism is quite literally, "without theism". If one is not a theist, that is if one does not believe in any god, one is an atheist. There is no third way. Belief is either there or it is not.
Agnosticism lies on a separate axis. Agnosticism isn't a position on the matter of belief in a god, but rather a position on the matter of knowledge about a god.
It has been discussed to death, but on reading this post we actually agree 100% with each other, agnosticism is a matter of knowledge, not belief, therefore lies on a separate axis from theism/atheism.
I actually had edited my post shortly before you quoted it too, and what you quoted did have certain flaws to it. If you go back to look at the post this was what I had edited it to after you clicked the quote button I guess:
"Disbelief is different from a lack of belief though, which would be a strong form of agnosticism (maybe closer to just apathy), in which there total lack of belief either way.
Belief and disbelief are polar opposites though, just as theism and atheism are polar opposites."
I think it's a much better representation of what I was getting at, and the ultimate conclusion still remained that atheism is not a lack of belief. It takes a position on the scale of belief, such that an atheist believes that there is no god/deity - the polar opposite of the theist in belief.
You're misusing the word "disbelief". I've seen this all too often before too.
disbelief noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
disbelieve verb (used with object) 1. to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings. verb (used without object) 2. to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.
In the absence of evidence, if you were to tell me that microbial life exists on Mars, I would disbelieve i.e. have no belief in that claim. I would not necessarily believe the opposite. I would simply not accept your claims as true.
Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that "There is no god" is a true statement. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but does not explicitly claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false.
One is the assertion that there is no God, and the other is just lack of belief. If I told you that microbial life existed on Mars, would you tell me that you don't believe me (but don't make the assertion that there can't be microbial life on Mars), or that there is no possibility of microbial life on Mars? That's the difference.
so when asked if there is a good weak atheists just refuse to answer the question?
The answer would be "I don't believe so" as opposed to "I believe that there is not"
your example seems to be more agnostic about life on mars rather than differing atheisms
Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
It's unlikely caused by any sort of understanding of Christian religious beliefs that they did so. Rather, it was more likely a cultural influence that exists independently of Christianity. Christianity does not teach good morals, it teaches that feelings (not actions) are morally condemnable. That's right, every time you feel sexual desire, doubt (guess we just threw science out the window), apathy, anger, pride in your accomplishments... you are sinning. You should repress your feelings. It is a hostility against the very essence of life, devaluing our humanity (emotions are WRONG) so that we may live "better" in the "afterlife". It is NOT so that we live better in this life.
The "good morals" that people get from Christianity (stealing is wrong, murdering is wrong) are really projections of their own cultural and biological drives that they then claim to see in the Bible. So as not to derail the thread, if you wish to debate this particular point, send me a pm.
Ultimately, the only thing we need is a group of people that have a culture that promotes preferable actions, not necessarily Christianity. So I must disagree with this claim that atheism can't do this. There are quite a few secular groups that promote values that you may consider good, and warn against values that you consider bad (that is to say, against crime). If you honestly believe that only Christianity/Buddhism is capable of teaching people that crime is wrong (edit: or at least not in their best interests), well, then that is a sad state for humanity indeed.
On September 28 2011 19:58 Ancestral wrote: Didn't see a thread on this.
A small town in Alabama is allowing those convicted of nonviolent crimes to attend church for a year to avoid jail time or paying a fine. They have to check in with an officer every week during the year. (Edit: Small town = population 7,000).
The ACLU raised concerns about separation of church and state, but the police chief said that since the church time is optional, it doesn't violate the spirit of the separation (or specifically in the U.S., the no establishment clause).
This is really interesting to me because as many Americans and non-Americans, I think our prison system puts way too many people behind bars. It costs a lot, and society is not necessarily safer when a grocery store thief goes to jail.
But I'm also an atheist and feel that a much much better, more logical, less stupid alternative could be devised, any type of community service really. I still like the spirit, because I assume the idea is make the offender less likely to commit crime rather than save his ever loving soul, but I'm not even sure that a small church in a small town will really help that much. But maybe.
And who knows if it will be shot down anyway. The experimentation, is interesting though.
What are your thoughts on these ideas / the story itself? And it may be too much to ask but preventing religious arguments would be nice, but mentioning religion and it's actual effects in this case will obviously be necessary.
This is blatantly unconstitutional, regardless of what the police chief says (and he's not qualified to defend it.) This is just a badly veiled technique to try to convince more people to go to church.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
It's unlikely caused by any sort of understanding of Christian religious beliefs that they did so. Rather, it was more likely a cultural influence that exists independently of Christianity. Christianity does not teach good morals, it teaches that feelings (not actions) are morally condemnable. That's right, every time you feel sexual desire, doubt (guess we just threw science out the window), apathy, anger, pride in your accomplishments... you are sinning. You should repress your feelings. It is a hostility against the very essence of life, devaluing our humanity (emotions are WRONG) so that we may live "better" in the "afterlife". It is NOT so that we live better in this life.
The "good morals" that people get from Christianity (stealing is wrong, murdering is wrong) are really projections of their own cultural and biological drives that they then claim to see in the Bible. So as not to derail the thread, if you wish to debate this particular point, send me a pm.
Ultimately, the only thing we need is a group of people that have a culture that promotes preferable actions, not necessarily Christianity. So I must disagree with this claim that atheism can't do this. There are quite a few secular groups that promote values that you may consider good, and warn against values that you consider bad (that is to say, against crime). If you honestly believe that only Christianity/Buddhism is capable of teaching people that crime is wrong (edit: or at least not in their best interests), well, then that is a sad state for humanity indeed.
We can send all the criminals to Japan and it probably won't change them. You are right about culture but they need to be in a very powerful environment, Countries with Confucian cultures work because people in that culture have been brought up and slowly been instilled with Confucian ideals since they were born. If you place a criminal in such a country, it won't change them, there is already a correlation between burglaries and the amount of foreigners in Japan (cbf citing, I just hear it on the news in japan sometimes).
I don't honestly believe that Christianity and Buddhism are the only ones capable, but I mentioned them because they have produced results. I honestly doubt however that a religion like atheism could do the same, there isn't a framework for self-control, I'm pretty sure it supports the opposite.
In summary, its horses for courses. You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing, it can be a good thing for people who don't know how to control their emotions. For other people they may prefer to let their emotions run wild. A religion like buddhism teaches you how to control your emotions through discipline, there are benefits to this, and it is complicated. Christianity gives you a much more dogmatic view of the world, and may be easier for people to control their emotions that way.
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing,
To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive.
Chastity is a virtue, ha. Then let us all practice chastity and see where it leads us in a single century. Let us recognize doubt as the ultimate sin and veto against science.
I must simply disagree with you that atheism lends itself to the opposite of self control. Rather than appealing to the next life by disvaluing this life, atheism is solely concerned with this life, and is thus rather adept at dealing with the concerns of this life. If atheism truly supports a lack of self control, my experience in the secular community must be an odd one. For I have witnessed no such thing.
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing,
To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive.
Chastity is a virtue, ha. Then let us all practice chastity and see where it leads us in a single century. Let us recognize doubt as the ultimate sin and veto against science.
I must simply disagree with you that atheism lends itself to the opposite of self control. Rather than appealing to the next life by disvaluing this life, atheism is solely concerned with this life, and is thus rather adept at dealing with the concerns of this life. If atheism truly supports a lack of self control, my experience in the secular community must be an odd one. For I have witnessed no such thing.
Chastity and celibacy are not the same thing.
A woman can be a mother of 10 and still be chaste, she just needs to have had sex only with her husband, after getting married.
As for repressing emotions: imagine if my emotions consisted of lust, hatred, rage. In this case, repressing my emotions might be bad for my mental health, but would be very, very good for all the women I would have raped.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
People are constantly picking parts of my point and arguing it out, when it has no context in the case of my argument?
People have been documented to have been completely transformed through religion, what is so hard to understand about that?
Again its horses for courses, there are people on this forum who think everyone should live a certain way because it works for them, but they don't realise it doesn't work for everybody.
So what's the alternatives that other people have come up with? - Made up religion with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (retardology) - An existing body with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (atheism) - Jail (justice baby!), and ruin any prospect of them being successful in life
I think the benefits of sending a criminal to a Christian Church over jail outweigh the odds, and its a great idea for an experiment.
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing,
To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive. .
I disagree. I think one of the most undervalued traits of western society is discipline of the mind.
We already act completely differently from when we were cavemen, are you suggesting that we revert back to that and rape and pillage because we should succumb to our innate drives?
Its part of human nature to evolve, and to thrive in today's society requires a completely different type of human-being to that of caveman times. We already in your words "repress our emotions" a lot, and we do it to survive.
Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today?
How much do you think Steve Jobs is suffering because he has to have top notch emotional control, because big brother is watching him? I dunno, but certainly not enough to make him give up his millions until he got cancer, and even then ...
Which gets back to my main point, that it may not be a bad thing for criminals to be even forcefully guided towards self discipline, even via dogmatic means. Its absolutely crucial for them in order to be able to function in this kind of society. There's benefits to learning to control and repress ones emotions, and the suffering you mention doesn't really appear to be a problem if at all.
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing,
To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive.
Chastity is a virtue, ha. Then let us all practice chastity and see where it leads us in a single century. Let us recognize doubt as the ultimate sin and veto against science.
I must simply disagree with you that atheism lends itself to the opposite of self control. Rather than appealing to the next life by disvaluing this life, atheism is solely concerned with this life, and is thus rather adept at dealing with the concerns of this life. If atheism truly supports a lack of self control, my experience in the secular community must be an odd one. For I have witnessed no such thing.
Chastity and celibacy are not the same thing.
A woman can be a mother of 10 and still be chaste, she just needs to have had sex only with her husband, after getting married.
As for repressing emotions: imagine if my emotions consisted of lust, hatred, rage. In this case, repressing my emotions might be bad for my mental health, but would be very, very good for all the women I would have raped.
Yes, but she cannot have sex with her husband because she enjoys it, that would be lust. She must do so only for the sake of procreating. If one is truly chaste they would feel so negatively about sex that they would never do so willingly, for all sex that is enjoyable involves some sort of lust, and that is the problem.
As for your argument for repressing emotions: Here you're not arguing against emotions, but the actions that are consequences of emotions, which are entirely, completely, absolutely different. And it is the consequences of emotions that we should guard against, not the emotions themselves. Lust is not bad, it aids in our survival. Anger is not bad, it aids in our survival. Compassion is not bad, it aids in our survival. But the situations in which we utilize these are varied, and based on culture.
I'm not arguing against behaving rationally. Rather, that all actions that are rational are based in emotions themselves. And to deny them is to deny life. "It is not contrary to reason that I should prefer the destruction of the whole world, to the scratching of my finger." You talk of rationality, but all rationality is a slave to emotion to begin with. Everything is based on sentiment. You cannot behave "rationally" if you repress your emotions.
Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today?
But not frequently blowing up the television is also one of his drives. It is a stronger drive than the drive to destroy things. At least, it is for Steve Jobs.
Also, Norway's prison rehabilitation has been extremely successful. I thought you said jail couldn't fix criminals?
On September 29 2011 21:06 sluggaslamoo wrote: Its been proven that teaching strong almost "fundamentalist" buddhism (if that makes any sense) or christianity has helped a lot of people stop committing crimes. You can't use a lot of religions because they are either too complicated, or if taken strictly will cause people to commit crimes.
Its not about religion and more about tribalism, a lot of people commit crimes because they have an identity crisis or feel like they can't achieve anything. But when you bring them into a tightly nit group, it doesn't matter what they believe in, if they believe they belong to group and feel like they've achieved something and the group tells them not to commit crimes then they will most likely take it to heart.
Community service may help a bit but not a lot, there are other things like if you could get them into art or something that would work, the thing is historically the church provided services to the very poor, and still do, and it should be enough to keep these people out of trouble. If you have a religion which can't do that or don't have the money (icecreamtology for instances), then the criminals will still commit crimes because they can't live without it.
Its kind of a paradigm shift, people always think we should punish those who do wrong, but that's a problem because at the same time we aren't teaching what is right. Someone can receive punishment in church, at the same time they will be given guidelines to correct themselves (same as buddhism), atheism doesn't do this, neither does jail.
PS: I am agnostic.
Can you provide a citation for the first claim?
No, its from first hand experience (I mean from seeing other people) and also shown in a lot of documentaries (which I can't be bothered citing, but are from ABC Australia (much like BBC UK) which is a government channel and has no vested interests in such things). If you go to revivalist churches you will see a lot of kids and adults who have stopped using drugs and committing crimes.
People are constantly picking parts of my point and arguing it out, when it has no context in the case of my argument?
People have been documented to have been completely transformed through religion, what is so hard to understand about that?
Again its horses for courses, there are people on this forum who think everyone should live a certain way because it works for them, but they don't realise it doesn't work for everybody.
So what's the alternatives that other people have come up with? - Made up religion with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (retardology) - An existing body with no framework for behavioural or emotional control (atheism) - Jail (justice baby!), and ruin any prospect of them being successful in life
I think the benefits of sending a criminal to a Christian Church over jail outweigh the odds, and its a great idea for an experiment.
You can't say that "repressing" your feelings (I would call controlling your emotions) is a bad thing,
To actually believe myself doing something wrong every time I feel something is absolutely absurd. You call it controlling your emotions, but that's different from repressing them. If we are to actually repress them, we deny our biological and cultural drives, which can only lead to suffering. For anyone who subscribes to the belief in evolution, knows that it is our drives that lead us to where we are today. To repress them, then, would breed a weaker and ultimately self destructive race of human beings. So, yea, I say that completely "repressing" your feelings is definitely a bad thing. Which is what you ought to do if these feelings are actually sins and "wrong". I submit that repressing your feelings to the extent that Christianity requires is psychologically self destructive. .
I disagree. I think one of the most undervalued traits of western society is discipline of the mind.
We already act completely differently from when we were cavemen, are you suggesting that we revert back to that and rape and pillage because we should succumb to our innate drives?
Its part of human nature to evolve, and to thrive in today's society requires a completely different type of human-being to that of caveman times. We already in your words "repress our emotions" a lot, and we do it to survive.
Pretty sure the most successful people in the world, have a great amount of self-control and self-discipline. Considering that a single blunder can make them lose everything, if 5 years ago Steve Jobs would frequently blow up on television because he preferred to trust his "drives" rather than actually be rational about things, where would Apple be today?
How much do you think Steve Jobs is suffering because he has to have top notch emotional control, because big brother is watching him? I dunno, but certainly not enough to make him give up his millions until he got cancer, and even then ...
Which gets back to my main point, that it may not be a bad thing for criminals to be even forcefully guided towards self discipline, even via dogmatic means. Its absolutely crucial for them in order to be able to function in this kind of society. There's benefits to learning to control and repress ones emotions, and the suffering you mention doesn't really appear to be a problem if at all.
I find it hilarious that the person who is the closest to mainstream anthropological and sociological thought is the one that keeps being hacked down in this thread. People need to stop being so narrow minded. Sure he didn't give any good citations or sources to back up his claim, but there is a lot of information and research out there regarding this topic. To start with I would point you towards David Émile Durkheim's social theory of suicide as a good place to begin, as a section of the research done is around religion at its effect on human behaviours within a social context.
And remember kids, Marx said that religion is the opium of the masses for a reason.
Wait...wait what? This would mean animal abusers got a free pass because animal abuse is not a felony (even though it should be) so...no!!! No no no!!!!!
EPT
![[image loading]](http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/818/818885_300.jpg)
. I think as others have mentioned this is the result of not having enough funding during a budget crisis. And if that's not true, another argument is that it may simply be a better form of rehabilitation than their other typical strategies (jail time/fining). The world ain't a perfect place![[image loading]](http://www.openclipart.org/people/Master-Sayien/Seriously.svg)
