|
On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:47 ayaz2810 wrote:
This is abysmal. You always hear about how atheists are jerks. But, for some reason, no one bothers to make a stink about things like this. Sure, atheists/humanists may push their opinions on people, but they don't actually FORCE you to do things. How blind can you possibly be to sit and think "this person did a bad thing. If I make him sit and listen to stories about the invisible sky wizard Jesus, he will stop committing crimes". The person who came up with this is a JUDGE. A (hopefully) well educated member of American society. This person is in a position of power. When I read stuff like this or about that psycho Bachmann, it really frustrates me. I can't believe how many people actually support this kind of insanity. If my family wouldn't rage about it, I would totally move to another country in a heartbeat. Reading comprehension appears to be a weakness of yours. The first paragraph says it's an alternative to jail or fines. If you really think it's an "option", you are dumber than you seem to think I am. Which do you think your average street criminal will choose? Derp. So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option? One is almost not a punishment. I'm not religious, but church for 1 day a week for a year where i get to go home and chill compared to 1 year of jail is a fucking joke. The option is clearly better from a punishment point of view, intelligent people will go with church. What do you take, 100 dollars or 10 dollars? there is a choice, but one is clearly better than the other. Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct. It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it. ![[image loading]](http://b.vimeocdn.com/ps/818/818885_300.jpg) I definitely read the article, and he's pretty close... I mean, the amount of time the jail sentence would be isn't necessarily a year. It'd depend on the crime and would for most of these crimes be substantially less than a year. But other than that, it's exactly what he thinks it is. It's still the government saying that you either attend church or they will put you in jail.... which is, as the ACLU says, a blatant violation of constitutional rights. (In particular, it violates both the Establishment Clause by picking a certain religion and giving it special treatment, and the Free Exercise clause by literally putting you in jail for not attending religious services). That's not at all what they're saying. They're saying it's an alternative mostly to minor drug offenses, that have the participant attend some sort of drug program for 30 days, and the failure rate of those programs is enormous because they're too short term. A long term program is difficult to staff and fund, whereas the institutions for this are already in place. The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it. Quoting the article: "will give those found guilty of misdemeanors the choice of serving out their time in jail, paying a fine or attending church each Sunday for a year." It's not just about substituting one rehab program for another. It's about avoiding actual jail time and fines. (Yes, the jail might have a drug program in it... but that's not the point.) Jail time involved doesn't mean you go to jail for a year. You will not go to jail for a year for a non-violent misdemeanor. At most a misdemeanor will last that long, but that's not the case the article talks about at all. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it.
In the age of religious reactionism and fervent anti-secular anti-intellectual religious sentiment in the United States, the separation of Church and state should NOT be ceding any ground. The secularism of this country is quite literally under attack by the religious right who see godless laws as the worst thing that could possibly happen. It doesn't matter if this program has a 100% efficacy, exceptions should not be made that allow the Church into our laws any more than it already is, at least until the church backs the fuck off.
It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity for people to blur church and state with their own separate religion. The fact is you're still blurring the line, and unlike a lot of hyperbole across various arguments, giving religious fanatics an inch on anything really is a slippery slope toward giving them their dream government.
The constitution doesnt' say "Congress shall only make laws that respect establishments of religion equally and fairly"
It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And for those of you who don't understand what respecting means in that context, it means giving reference to, not "giving respect" to.
|
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
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:On September 28 2011 23:55 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:53 Charger wrote:
[quote]
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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 01:48 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:
The constitutionality argument is completely separate from what he said and while it's partially true, there are a number of ways to work around it or frame it so that it's in line with the Constitution. American secularism doesn't operate under laïcité, it's possible to incorporate religion into public policy. If they specifically deny the requests from people of other religions, then there would be an easy case against it. In the age of religious reactionism and fervent anti-secular anti-intellectual religious sentiment in the United States, the separation of Church and state should NOT be ceding any ground. The secularism of this country is quite literally under attack by the religious right who see godless laws as the worst thing that could possibly happen. It doesn't matter if this program has a 100% efficacy, exceptions should not be made that allow the Church into our laws any more than it already is, at least until the church backs the fuck off. It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity for people to blur church and state with their own separate religion. The fact is you're still blurring the line, and unlike a lot of hyperbole across various arguments, giving religious fanatics an inch on anything really is a slippery slope toward giving them their dream government. The constitution doesnt' say "Congress shall only make laws that respect establishments of religion equally and fairly" It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And for those of you who don't understand what respecting means in that context, it means giving reference to, not "giving respect" to. Hooray for slippery slope arguments. This is not the secularism that America has practiced since its inception, fyi. You can personally take it to the Supreme Court and read through past proceedings, but American secularism operates more closely with agnosticism than atheism. Some of the forefathers like Jefferson might have been atheist, but they weren't uncompromising ones.
On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote:
Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator
Totally irrelevant. >.>
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36892 Posts
Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator/such a boss.....
|
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 20:10 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2011 20:05 KwarK wrote:
As long as you can do it for every religion (atheism included) then sure, whatever works for them. If you can only do it for Christianity then it's giving Christians preferential penal treatment which is obviously unfair. 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.
|
this shouldnt even be legal
|
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 00:09 Coraz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:08 ayaz2810 wrote:On September 29 2011 00:01 Coraz wrote:
This sounds like how America used to be before Christianity was overthrown and America was destroyed as a culture.
"It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity," Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama told the paper." - giving an option is not forcing
Thats funny, I've read the Constitution about 50 times and never come across the part mentioned here.
I love "New Law"
edit: I just got busted with a clean record for first time drug offense, I wish I could go to church instead of up to 30 days in jail for doing nothing. (In fact, I already believe in Jesus, so what does that tell you about our immoral war on drugs?) Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)Maybe you should become an atheist. Or commit to your religion enough to learn it. Condemning others. Classic. And since you're replying to me, let me say that you do force your atheistic culture on people like us all the time.
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 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 29 2011 02:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:57 Seeker wrote:
Why the hell are people arguing with Jibba? That guy's a TL moderator/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
|
I think this is complete bullshit and I'm completely against it. Fucking ridiculous.
|
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?
|
On September 29 2011 02:02 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:54 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:45 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:39 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:32 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 01:16 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 01:05 aristarchus wrote:On September 29 2011 00:52 Jibba wrote:On September 29 2011 00:36 r_con wrote:On September 29 2011 00:02 Charger wrote:
[quote]
So because most people will choose a certain option means it's not an option?
One is almost not a punishment. I'm not religious, but church for 1 day a week for a year where i get to go home and chill compared to 1 year of jail is a fucking joke. The option is clearly better from a punishment point of view, intelligent people will go with church. What do you take, 100 dollars or 10 dollars? there is a choice, but one is clearly better than the other. Another TLer who didn't read the article! I'm glad there's so many of you for me to correct. It's not a choice of a year of jail or a year of going to church and meeting with the pastor and police. Try reading *gasp* BEFORE posting and take a look at what they're actually doing, and the reasoning behind it. 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.
|
On September 29 2011 02:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
