Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Myrensis]

Its optional, not compulsory. I dont see the need for the militant atheist locale' on NS to get so riled up about it. If they were forcing them to go to Church, then yeah, I see the point. But its an option, people, jeesh.

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.

Can anybody actually make an argument as to why this wouldn't be more constructive than jail time?

Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

[AiliailiA]

I like what I've read here. I'm replying not to argue but mostly in agreement, because at the end of the post you imply that you'd read my posts. I like to be read

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.

Er, you have the root and the branch mixed up. The claim was that Christianity is relevant because American laws have a root in Christian teaching. Well they do, but Terraius seems to see it as a "taproot", a single root more important than any other.

And the idea that all biblical laws should be enforced by law in the modern day is too horrible to really argue against. It should be left alone to refute itself.

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.

I wouldn't say "many". I can't think of a religion which doesn't have a church or pastors of some kind ... perhaps Confucianism? And it's a pretty tiny religious minority which doesn't have a church within a day's travel there and back.

I suppose you could make the argument that minority religious believers likely have to travel further to find "their" church and get their attendance sheet signed off. And that the requirement that they visit church on a Sunday is discriminatory (Friday is the Muslim holy day, and Saturday the Jewish one, I think).

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.

There would be a lot less objection to offering the offender an option of charitable work under the auspices of churches (since there would be secular alternatives, and also that work is punishment not instruction).

What is so offensive about this proposal is the overt intention to instruct offenders in "moral rules" only some of which are relevant to the offender later leading a law-abiding life. The other 'spiritual' claims made by religions come bundled with whatever "moral rules" the religion has in common with the law.

And what of the other moral "laws" which religions propound? Whether it's not eating pork, not eating beef, not committing adultery ... what social benefit is there in an offender learning such rules when those things are not actually illegal? Frankly, I think that trying to live by more rules than is actually necessary is more likely to fail catastrophically, with a serious crime instead of another petty one.

I do like prison diversion programs for young first offenders, btw. Including classes which could be called "moral instruction" ... but they must be targeted at the illegal behavior and not come with moral baggage.

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...

Um, I prefer to be referred to as a "poster" rather than a "guy" if you don't mind.

The regular churchgoer is definitely imposed on less than the non-churchgoer who now has to give up time on a Sunday. Though technically they are still imposed on because they can't choose to stop attending church for the remainder of the year.

[AiliailiA]

Its optional, not compulsory. I dont see the need for the militant atheist locale' on NS to get so riled up about it. If they were forcing them to go to Church, then yeah, I see the point. But its an option, people, jeesh.

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.

And what I think will happen is the police chief will keep blovinating about his upstanding proposal, long after it has been abandoned as legally indefensible. And he'll whine about the ACLU being bullies ... but if he has any legal advice worth spitting at he won't contest it because at the end of the day there will just be court bills to pay and that could cost him his job.

[Bottle]

Its optional, not compulsory. I dont see the need for the militant atheist locale' on NS to get so riled up about it. If they were forcing them to go to Church, then yeah, I see the point. But its an option, people, jeesh.

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.

Can anybody actually make an argument as to why this wouldn't be more constructive than jail time?

Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

Bingo.

If these are people who genuinely deserve or need jail time, then letting them walk just because they will go to church once a week is completely inappropriate. And if they are people who genuinely don't deserve or need jail time, they just need to spend once a week doing something in penance, then it is completely and totally inappropriate to lock them up if they decline to go to a religious ceremony.

[Genivaria]

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.



Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

Bingo.

If these are people who genuinely deserve or need jail time, then letting them walk just because they will go to church once a week is completely inappropriate. And if they are people who genuinely don't deserve or need jail time, they just need to spend once a week doing something in penance, then it is completely and totally inappropriate to lock them up if they decline to go to a religious ceremony.

Assign them to build solar panels for about a month.

[Bottle]

Bingo.

If these are people who genuinely deserve or need jail time, then letting them walk just because they will go to church once a week is completely inappropriate. And if they are people who genuinely don't deserve or need jail time, they just need to spend once a week doing something in penance, then it is completely and totally inappropriate to lock them up if they decline to go to a religious ceremony.

Assign them to build solar panels for about a month.

Hell, assign them to pick up trash by the roadside for an hour or two once a week...I guarantee they'll spend more time thinking about what they did wrong, more time regretting getting in trouble, and more time doing something of value to the community.

[Genivaria]

Assign them to build solar panels for about a month.

Hell, assign them to pick up trash by the roadside for an hour or two once a week...I guarantee they'll spend more time thinking about what they did wrong, more time regretting getting in trouble, and more time doing something of value to the community.

The first thought I had was of those chain gangs we used to have.

[Vortiaganica]

Why a church?

Why not religious-based community service? It means you can offer something to religious criminals, and for atheists or agnostics or minorities, then a secular community service is basically the same.

There's a simple solution, instead of this 'let's build a church for every religion', or offer special ethical programs in Atheist Churches, or whatever I read on this thread and decided to completely ignore, take out of context and exaggerate in the last two points.

[Tekania]

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/09/bay_minette_alternative_senten.html

BAY MINETTE, Alabama — A new alternative sentencing program offering first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice of a year of church attendance or jail time and fines is drawing fire from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as national attention, officials said Friday.
"This policy is blatantly unconstitutional," said Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama. "It violates one basic tenant of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity."
But the local police chief who is heading up the program starting Tuesday called "Restore Our Community" says no one is being forced to participate.
"Operation ROC resulted from meetings with church leaders," Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland said. "It was agreed by all the pastors that at the core of the crime problem was the erosion of family values and morals. We have children raising children and parents not instilling values in young people."
Rowland said the idea was simple: get people who are not yet hardened criminals to become involved in positive programs — hundreds of free resources offered by some 104 churches in the region with 56 agreeing to help monitor first-time, nonviolent offenders. Under the program, pastors would report weekly to the chief and offenders in the program would bring a signed sheet to prove they attended church.
They would also have to answer some questions about the services, Rowland said. And the offenders who voluntarily choose church over jail get to pick the churches they attend. If they complete a year’s attendance, Rowland said, their criminal case would be dismissed.
Rowland said the goal is to produce "productive citizens."
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.
Rowland said the Bay Minette ROC project is the only one of its kind in the country, but online searches show others have been tried. A similar program in London, Ky., drew headlines in 2004, and before that a judge in Lake Charles, La., was eventually suspended for ethics violations stemming from sentencing defendants to church, according to a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in 1994.
"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."
Rowland said he was doubtful, however, that an atheist would choose to participate in the ROC program, but would be able to choose community service or other options.
The ACLU is "considering options for response," Turner said.
"There isn’t a real choice here," she said. "This policy completely entangles government with religion, and is an abuse of power because it coerces people into religious exercise."

Does anyone else think that this is beyond messed up?
Go ACLU, fight this theocratic BS!

Nope not at all, since it appears there are "community service" options as well. I applaud programs which seek to actually help change the lives of those who may be slipping into a life of crime... Perhaps you feel it's best to continue our normal policy of giving up on the people, throwing them in cages and castigating them for the rest of their lives... surely that is in the best interest of "civil liberties" in your perverted mind.

[Risottia]

Does anyone else think that this is beyond messed up?

Perfectly in line with the emerging American Theocratic Confederation of Jesusland, a holy country that will eventually replace the atheomuslim-led Unholy Socialist America.

[Kazomal]

I appreciate the efforts to avoid sending young, first-time offenders to jail and to instead help them integrate into the mainstream community and economy, but I'd like to see a much more comprehensive system put into place, not just "jail or church." Not that churches can't be involved, just that "jail or church" is like forcing people into church, which the government can't do, especially since there seems to be little options for non-Christian offenders, according to the article.

[Kazomal]

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.



Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

Bingo.

If these are people who genuinely deserve or need jail time, then letting them walk just because they will go to church once a week is completely inappropriate. And if they are people who genuinely don't deserve or need jail time, they just need to spend once a week doing something in penance, then it is completely and totally inappropriate to lock them up if they decline to go to a religious ceremony.

I think the idea isn't that they just do something in penitence twice a week, but that they are in some sort of program that will teach them how to turn their lives around and help them to integrate into the mainstream community and get a job and shit, rather than continue with a life of crime, not be able to get a real job because of a criminal record, etc. My problem is that it's necessarily religious, and, by default, one religion in a multi-faith society (the article said there were few, of any, mosques and synagogues available for this program).

So, better than giving them x hours of trash pickup, give them the option of enrolling in some sort of rehabilitation program, be it a program to help them with specific substance abuse or mental health problems, or some sort of general rehab program that will help with vocational training, integration into society, etc. This can be done in conjunction with local non-profits, including churches, mosques, synagogues, etc, on the same basis as with any other community non-profits.

[Ostroeuropa]

Can i attend science lessons instead

[Sanguinthium]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government, and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

[Sanguinthium]

Its optional, not compulsory. I dont see the need for the militant atheist locale' on NS to get so riled up about it. If they were forcing them to go to Church, then yeah, I see the point. But its an option, people, jeesh.

Not relevant. Whether or not it's a 'choice', it is still in effect the State sentencing you to go to Church.I don't see this having a snowballs chance in hell of standing up in court.

Can anybody actually make an argument as to why this wouldn't be more constructive than jail time?

Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

they arent being sentanced to church; they are givin the option to opt out of prison time. they have absolutly no obligation to actually agree. if its optional, they arent been "sentanced to church"

and, young nonviolent first time offenders, could mean anything from a dope charge to boosting a car.

[Kazomal]

But the only option in the program is church. That's the problem, Constitutionally.

[Dyakovo]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government, and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

Sorry, but the US constitution does apply to the states as well.

[Kazomal]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government, and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

Every part of this is wrong.

[AiliailiA]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that



that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government, and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

Every part of this is wrong.

Nice of them to put the wrong in point form like that tho.

[Tahar Joblis]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government,

No, actually, the US constitution applies to all state governments. Alabama doesn't have a special exemption.

and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

Do you think it's even as "optional" as having a teacher lead prayers in school?

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

You most definitely do not. In fact, numerous rights, such as rights not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial, the right to not incriminate yourself, and the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, only apply once someone has gotten afoul of law enforcement - i.e., to the arrested, to the charged, and to the convicted.

[Sanguinthium]

you do realize that this is optional?
also, doesnt mention which church; and it doesnt violate the first amendment. 1st amendment states that



that is the american constitution, not the Alabama constitution; it only binds the federal government,

No, actually, the US constitution applies to all state governments. Alabama doesn't have a special exemption.

and first time nonviolent offenders are rarely guilty of a federal offense;

and doubtless the alabama constitution also contains something similar, it still isnt a "law", its a policy, and its still not required, its optional.

Do you think it's even as "optional" as having a teacher lead prayers in school?

also, in america (unlike those european countries where they think shooting a burgler is a violation of his civil rights) you loose your rights when you become a convict.

You most definitely do not. In fact, numerous rights, such as rights not to be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial, the right to not incriminate yourself, and the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, only apply once someone has gotten afoul of law enforcement - i.e., to the arrested, to the charged, and to the convicted.

yes... which happens before you are convicted. newsflash; felons cant vote.

the state governments are state governments for a reason- the federal government is made by the FEDERAL constitution. the alabama government is made by the ALABAMA constitution. this is why some cities have city councils instead of mayors.
and the teacher leading a prayer, if the prayer leading also allows for a student to exit the room, than they are good.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The program definitely crosses the line between church and state, with little respect for other religious and non-religious groups.

[United low territories]

No it doesn't. The previous pope at some point atmitted that it had something going for it, but not this one. Ratzinger is hardcore. What do you expect from a man that served in the German army, hardcore to the bone.

Ah yes, Ratzinger, who was indeed in the Hitler Youth. Now, the part most people forget about is that Ratzinger fled from the Hitler Youth (risking his life) because he didn't want to be a part of it, and was held in an American run POW camp for a while.


And the Catholic Church has no problem with the Theory of Evolution, in fact, Catholic schools even TEACH it.
Please, if you have a issue with the RCC, at least have a legitimate issue (there are plenty you could pick).

He wasn't just in the Hitler Jugend, he was in the army. He did two tours of duty and only fled in the last few weeks or even days, like a lot of other Germans that didn't want to go down with the reich.

This doesn't make him a bad person, everybody was drafted, but it certainly doesn't make him a hero.

Some catholic schools probably teach evolution, but mine for instance didn't, and that was far from a very religious school. They simply decided we could skip the basics of modern biology. And I'm sure the way the pope handles evolution doesn't exactly contribute to people taking it as serious as they should (if they in any way like things like truth and medicines and stuff).

So yeah, I think those are pretty legitimate issues. As is the one about the condoms. He says his words are to be explained as "no sexs is even safer than sex with a condom", but they sound more like "if you're going to do it you might as well not use a condom, you're going to get aids anyway". Which is not a message you want to send, especially not since Africa has enough problems with their own authority figures and all the things they say about aids.

[Tahar Joblis]

yes... which happens before you are convicted.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" is barred not only before, but also after conviction.

newsflash; felons cant vote.

In some states. Under certain circumstances, the legitimacy of those state laws can be challenged.

Originally, only white male landowners could vote. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a universal franchise, although certain amendments have made steps in that direction.

the state governments are state governments for a reason- the federal government is made by the FEDERAL constitution. the alabama government is made by the ALABAMA constitution.

But is also subject to the federal constitution. This is why state and local authorities need warrants in order to make arrests, can't hold detainees indefinitely without charge, etc etc. The federal constitution supercedes all state constitutions and applies to all states.

this is why some cities have city councils instead of mayors.
and the teacher leading a prayer, if the prayer leading also allows for a student to exit the room, than they are good.

Existing case law bars all public school authorities from leading prayers as a violation of the establishment clause. (Note schools are also not federal institutions). Schools may not sponsor or promote prayer. Even student-led prayers may be barred under the circumstance in which the school may be seen to be giving official endorsement to the prayer... let alone teacher-led.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 0/421.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 5/577.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 99-62.html

[Sanguinthium]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are; i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution; and schools are indeed federal institutions. "no child left behind".

i now assume that you believe it is racist that i believe that illegal immigration is a crime, and should be treated as such. (jokes. but i do think that deportation, and the Arizona law are the answer.)

anyway... point is, the federal government CANNOT force states to comply with its policy; the answer is that they cut off highway funding or whatever.

anyway, what you need to understand that this does not specify "christian church". just because it doesnt have "many" Synogauges or Mosques doesnt mean anything. that just means that there arent many synogauges or mosques in alabama (shocker). thats not government selection; thats simply demographics.

affirmative action is simply racism against whites.