Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Terraius]

Don't most prisons have chapels?

Sure, but they don't get to skip jail time do they?

Still the same principal of church and state being intermingled. If the church option is not allowed, then all chapels and Chaplin services should be pulled as it is favoring religious inmates over nonreligious inmates.

[AiliailiA]

How the fuck does someone with so little understanding of the Constitution become a police chief? Fuck, a passing student in high school civics would know this is not on.

Or perhaps he knows it won't survive legal challenge but is wasting taxpayer money to prove some religious point. In either case, a hefty demotion is called for.

[Terraius]

How the fuck does someone with so little understanding of the Constitution become a police chief? Fuck, a passing student in high school civics would know this is not on.

Or perhaps he knows it won't survive legal challenge but is wasting taxpayer money to prove some religious point. In either case, a hefty demotion is called for.

The choice is not compulsory nor a law, therefore it is not a church-state intermingling affair, just like prison chaplains. Relax.

And I happened to have taken high school civics and I, contrary to the point, think this is over exaggerated.

[Norstal]

Sure, but they don't get to skip jail time do they?

Still the same principal of church and state being intermingled. If the church option is not allowed, then all chapels and Chaplin services should be pulled as it is favoring religious inmates over nonreligious inmates.

But why don't they get to skip jail time whilst attending mosques or Buddhist temples (the latter could go for atheists)? Seems like the article only implied the only option they ever gave was church time.

That's the problem.

[Terraius]

Still the same principal of church and state being intermingled. If the church option is not allowed, then all chapels and Chaplin services should be pulled as it is favoring religious inmates over nonreligious inmates.

But why don't they get to skip jail time whilst attending mosques or Buddhist temples (the latter could go for atheists)? Seems like the article only implied the only option they ever gave was church time.

That's the problem.

Your really not fixing anything by trying to include as many religions as possible, you just go from favoring one to favoring religion in general.

And honestly, it would be rather stupid to allow all religions to partake in this, as a religion by definition of a tax exempt organization promoting spiritual needs and non profitable activities, would include such organizations as the satanic temples and Scientology, which quite honestly dont really offer any fundamental messages in regards to not committing a nonviolent offense (Stealing, lieing/purjury, etc) which would be a waste of time. Islam I could see.. but.. not ALL religions..

I mean cult of Cthulhu, seriously.

Its a logical line to draw. Orthodox, mainstream Christianity promotes tenants of not stealing, lieing, adultery, etc. If your looking to rehabilitate someone from a nonviolent crime, then Christianity has some good fundamental teachings on nonviolent crimes.

To say otherwise is to deny the American common/civil and criminal law altogether, which can trace its roots from English to Roman, ultimately judeo-christian law.

Alot of the laws we have today come from judeo-christian laws in regards to nonviolent offenses. If you are looking to rehabilitate someone, why not send them to the source. It could do them some good to hear positive messages that people actually give a shit about you and want you to be a better person and to love your fellow man as yourself.

Sometimes I feel as if people think churches are teaching stuff like beating up old people and indoctrination of far-right militarism. I mean seriously, your average run of the mill church is really not as bad as you think.

[AiliailiA]

How the fuck does someone with so little understanding of the Constitution become a police chief? Fuck, a passing student in high school civics would know this is not on.

Or perhaps he knows it won't survive legal challenge but is wasting taxpayer money to prove some religious point. In either case, a hefty demotion is called for.

The choice is not compulsory nor a law, therefore it is not a church-state intermingling affair, just like prison chaplains. Relax.

And I happened to have taken high school civics and I, contrary to the point, think this is over exaggerated.

It's going to crash and burn.

Even without invoking the First Amendment, which nukes it completely as enforced worship, this can be attacked as arbitrary punishment.

Like so: a person who already goes to church every sunday can opt for this program instead of jail. They receive literally NO punishment, because they don't have to do anything they weren't doing already. However, a person who doesn't go to church ever because the don't like it, receives a punishment. Some time every weekend doing something they don't like.

"The choice is not compulsory" is bullshit. A free choice would be "you can go to church, or you can go do whatever else you'd rather do." It's a crazy distortion of freedom to say that "you can go to church, or you can go to jail" is a free choice.

[Terraius]

"The choice is not compulsory" is bullshit. A free choice would be "you can go to church, or you can go do whatever else you'd rather do." It's a crazy distortion of freedom to say that "you can go to church, or you can go to jail" is a free choice.

Thats the funny thing about breaking the law, you usually dont get very many choices in regard to that situation. Your really not making any sense, just paranoid ranting.

[AiliailiA]

To say otherwise is to deny the American common/civil and criminal law altogether, which can trace its roots from English to Roman, ultimately judeo-christian law.

If you want to make the case that of all its roots, there is some special status for "judeo-christian law" the very last people you should mention are the Romans.

[New Agusta]

Go ROC

[Terraius]

To say otherwise is to deny the American common/civil and criminal law altogether, which can trace its roots from English to Roman, ultimately judeo-christian law.

If you want to make the case that of all its roots, there is some special status for "judeo-christian law" the very last people you should mention are the Romans.

Really?

[AiliailiA]

"The choice is not compulsory" is bullshit. A free choice would be "you can go to church, or you can go do whatever else you'd rather do." It's a crazy distortion of freedom to say that "you can go to church, or you can go to jail" is a free choice.

Thats the funny thing about breaking the law, you usually dont get very many choices in regard to that situation. Your really not making any sense, just paranoid ranting.

It's not paranoia. It's anger.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, and it makes me angry to see you blithely pretending that religious and civil law are so similar as to be interchangeable.

You snipped one piece out of my post, the part which directly rebutted yours and now you say I'm "not making any sense".

Well, you're making something. An enemy.

[Terraius]

Thats the funny thing about breaking the law, you usually dont get very many choices in regard to that situation. Your really not making any sense, just paranoid ranting.

It's not paranoia. It's anger.

This is blatantly unconstitutional, and it makes me angry to see you blithely pretending that religious and civil law are so similar as to be interchangeable.

You snipped one piece out of my post, the part which directly rebutted yours and now you say I'm "not making any sense".

Well, you're making something. An enemy.

This, coupled with this:

Even without invoking the First Amendment, which nukes it completely as enforced worship, this can be attacked as arbitrary punishment.

Is why I am calling you paranoid. Really, are there not bigger and better things to hate?

I suppose that offering criminals a chance to serve in the military to clear their crimes is, god forbid, state-sponsored militarism? Or what about state-funded healthcare for inmates? Dont tell me the government is now forcing its totalitarian health care oppression on the masses now!

[Trippoli]

What do atheist/agnostic criminals do?

Pretend to be Christ-lovers.

I mean, I'm not religious. But I'm okay with going to a church than spending time in a cell.

[AiliailiA]

Anderson v. Laird (1972) "Attendance at religious exercises is an activity which under the Establishment Clause a government may never compel."

Also, to the people saying that there not being forced to go to church services is like saying that because you refused to give money to the man who is pointing a gun at your face means you chose to die. Its not a choice.

That's a really bad analogy, because it is a choice.

It's a bad analogy because "choosing to die" is far worse than "choosing to go to jail".

But I agree with Genivaria's point. A free choice is "you can do x or not". Any choice of the form "you can do x or y, but you must do one of them" is a compelled choice.

[Dyelli Beybi]

I don't see the issue here. People have a choice. If a religious institution can rehabilitate some folk then good for them. Shoving first time non-violent offenders into a prison is a bit like sending them on criminality boot camp. The State can also use save money on administration costs and pass it over to the religious institutions etc which is good for the rest of society.

[Zarkanians]

To say otherwise is to deny the American common/civil and criminal law altogether, which can trace its roots from English to Roman, ultimately judeo-christian law.

Alot of the laws we have today come from judeo-christian laws in regards to nonviolent offenses. If you are looking to rehabilitate someone, why not send them to the source. It could do them some good to hear positive messages that people actually give a shit about you and want you to be a better person and to love your fellow man as yourself.
.

And democracy began in ancient Athens, but we aren't exactly praying to the thunder god now, are we?

[Terraius]

To say otherwise is to deny the American common/civil and criminal law altogether, which can trace its roots from English to Roman, ultimately judeo-christian law.

Alot of the laws we have today come from judeo-christian laws in regards to nonviolent offenses. If you are looking to rehabilitate someone, why not send them to the source. It could do them some good to hear positive messages that people actually give a shit about you and want you to be a better person and to love your fellow man as yourself.
.

And democracy began in ancient Athens, but we aren't exactly praying to the thunder god now, are we?

Because compulsary Greek god worship =/= optional choice to sit in a church.

[Zarkanians]

And democracy began in ancient Athens, but we aren't exactly praying to the thunder god now, are we?

Because compulsary Greek god worship =/= optional choice to sit in a church.

The point, which you were apparently too dense to see, was that stating that we should respect Christianity because it has roots in some American laws is akin to saying we should respect the Greek Gods because it has roots in democracy.

By the way, I disagree with this bill. ^_^ Either open it to all religions (yes, including Satanism and Scientology and even, god(s) forbid, Westboro), or none at all. This isn't just compulsory worship, it's discrimination. Many people can't go to church because their own religion prevents it, or because they have higher moral standards than the average person.

And before you get to the whole "people who commit crimes don't get many choices" speech, one of the things abou this was that it was for non-violent first-offenders, which I assume means low-level indictable. In many communities people can choose to serve community service instead, but from what I'm seeing that's not an option here... Despite the fact that part of the argument that they made was that they'd save money for the legal system.

And of course, there's that other guy's argument about how regular Sunday Mass attendees are getting off without having to do anything at all...

[Caffeinetopia]

By the way, I disagree with this bill. ^_^ Either open it to all religions (yes, including Satanism and Scientology and even, god(s) forbid, Westboro), or none at all.

"The biggest question or complaint we have had is about separation of church and state," Rowland said. "Those issues won’t come to the forefront because the offenders are not being forced to attend church, and what religion they choose is really up to them. We even have provisions for people who are from out of town to choose a place to worship in their own communities."

Some critics say the program definitely crosses the line between church and state, with some minority religious groups shut out of participation because few mosques or synagogues exist in the area. And atheists would have no option, Rowland said, but to pick another alternative sentencing program.

It doesn't sound like the program is intentionally shutting out minority religions. It sounds like the said religions are underrepresented because they have so few places of worship (and possibly fewer that are willing to participate in the program). This shouldn't be too much of a problem assuming that the demographics of people given this alternative sentencing option roughly mirrors the general population.

This isn't just compulsory worship, it's discrimination. Many people can't go to church because their own religion prevents it, or because they have higher moral standards than the average person.

I doubt that the criminals being given this option have "higher moral standards than the average person."

[AiliailiA]

Sure, but they don't get to skip jail time do they?

Still the same principal of church and state being intermingled. If the church option is not allowed, then all chapels and Chaplin services should be pulled as it is favoring religious inmates over nonreligious inmates.

No. Providing chaplin services to inmates is necessary in order to allow their exercise of religion.

Just like controlling the movements and activities of servicepeople, being in jail is a government act which would prevent church-going if some measures were not taken to substitute for the civic freedom to see a priest or attend a church. Many other rights are taken away in military service or in jail, but freedom of worship is not one of them.

I think that's a valid comparison. Note that although I'm a (mostly passive) atheist, I have no objection to either prison or military pastors.

[Malgrave]

And people are worried about Muslims and Sharia Law, America should be worrying about it's own home-grown Taliban. Hopefully the ACLU will kick this laws ass.

What do atheist/agnostic criminals do?

Stay in jail because they're filthy heathens and Alabama's upstanding moral communities don't want them, obviously.

This totally crazy law.

[North West Asia]

Stupid idea!

[The Sons of Thomas]

I thinks its a good idea but if some one doesnt believe, I dont believe that they should be forced to go but if they are christain and choose to repent then I think it is an excellent idea.

[The Floridian Coast]

I'd like to say that as a principled atheist I'd just let them throw me in jail, but I've seen jail and it kinda sucks, so I'd probably suck it up and do that hour of bullshit per week.

Anyway though, glad to know we're one step closer to being the United States of Iran.

[United States of Cascadia]

He's also a moron when it comes to science. I mean really, a guy who says that condoms spread HIV/AIDS knows nothing about modern medicine.

His point isn't that the condoms spread anything. The Church says that the sex itself spreads those diseases, and we know condoms do protect against disease.
I am a devout Catholic, and nothing I've ever been taught by the church said condoms spread disease.

Actually he has said it. This is the quote from Times Online: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".