Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Campt]

There's a few ways to look at it.

Atheists generally see church as a terrible environment anyway, because religion is awful. Wouldn't putting criminals there for punishment make sense? Just a funny thought. It's refutable easily, so pay no mind.

Creating church as an "out" is ridiculous on two ends. One, that people are rational human beings who made their choices, and punishing them affirms the fact that they chose and have a choice and are autonomous, and therefore respect their rights as individuals. I don't believe in putting them in church, and while this isn't compulsory, we all know where the criminals are going to go if they have to choose. This is put in place to change them, and if they choose to be changed, that's fine, that doesn't violate their autonomy. So, while not compulsory, since it's advantageous, I don't like the looks of it.

[Norstal]

Shut up Bottle your reason and logic are not wanted here.

you realize she just hammered your argument about "teaaaach themmmmm the dangerrrs of immorality!" right?

Terraius ignored Four-sided Triangles' argument, so, I'm not surprised.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Shut up Bottle your reason and logic are not wanted here.

you realize she just hammered your argument about "teaaaach themmmmm the dangerrrs of immorality!" right?

Don't bother, it's not worth it.

[Terraius]

Yeah really, I mean, whats the point in actually arguing when we can just bash people for their beliefs and pretend like its an intellectual debate and that our opinions actually matter and thats why we have to voice them on the internet.

[Norstal]

Yeah really, I mean, whats the point in actually arguing when we can just bash people for their beliefs and pretend like its an intellectual debate and that our opinions actually matter and thats why we have to voice them on the internet.

You should really try reading FST's and Bottle's post.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

And it has to be church too, because you won't learn values and keep out of prison at Mosque (there you'll become a terrorist), or Synagogue (there you'll become a Wall Street banker), or a Buddhist temple (you'll become a hippie). Nope, only in the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ can you learn the fortitude to stay out of prison.

[Salandriagado]

And it has to be church too, because you won't learn values and keep out of prison at Mosque (there you'll become a terrorist), or synagogue (there you'll become a Wall Street banker), or a Buddhist temple (you'll become a hippie). Nope, only in the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ can you learn the fortitude to stay out of prison.

Clearly.


So the bible belt is earning its name yet again, this time directly violating the constitution.

[The Rich Port]

And it has to be church too, because you won't learn values and keep out of prison at Mosque (there you'll become a terrorist), or synagogue (there you'll become a Wall Street banker), or a Buddhist temple (you'll become a hippie). Nope, only in the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ can you learn the fortitude to stay out of prison.

Clearly.


So the bible belt is earning its name yet again, this time directly violating the constitution.

Careful. I think he was being sarcastic.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Clearly.


So the bible belt is earning its name yet again, this time directly violating the constitution.

Careful. I think he was being sarcastic.

How was that not obvious?

[Salandriagado]

Clearly.


So the bible belt is earning its name yet again, this time directly violating the constitution.

Careful. I think he was being sarcastic.

Not at all. Obviously he was being serious.

[The Chaos Heart]

Except it IS your problem.

If kids are fucking without protection and getting STDs, those medical costs have to be paid by somebody. The kids who are at highest risk for STDs tend to be the kids who don't have access to safe and effective contraception, and those same kids are also the ones who are most likely to be uninsured and have parents who simply cannot afford good medical coverage.

If kids are fucking without protection and somebody gets pregnant, the costs dealing with that pregnancy have to be paid by somebody. See above.

The anti-choice right has done a wonderful job of making sure that abortion services, while nominally legal, are extremely difficult to obtain for this same demographic. So the costs of bearing, birthing, and raising the resulting offspring will have to be carried by somebody. See above.

The resulting children, born to under-age parents who were already disadvantaged to begin with, will very likely become another generation of problems that will have to be dealt with.

These people and these problems exist. You can stick your fingers in your ears and insist that it ain't yer problem, but it is. If you choose to ignore them, they will still get sick, they will still need food, they will still try to survive. They will turn to crime if they must. They will spread illness because they have no choice. They will continue to have more children because you won't do a thing to help them have alternatives, and even the poor are going to seek life's small pleasures (like sex) when they can.

It's infantile and stupid to pretend like you can just tell kids "this is what happens if you fuck" and then wash your hands of everything after that. Thank heavens for the countless people who are more responsible than that, and who take it upon themselves to help ensure that kids get medical care and counseling beyond this pathetic excuse for "sex ed."

Shut up Bottle your reason and logic are not wanted here.

...ummm...

[The Rich Port]

Shut up Bottle your reason and logic are not wanted here.

...ummm...

Most likely sarcasm.

XD Seems to be happening a lot in this thread.

>:P @ The Anti-Cosmic Gods and Salamandersomething

[F1-Insanity]

So it really is 'RINO' (religious in name only)... churches are desperate for attendance? Most people apparently don't really care one way or another about it... look at regular church attendance, is it even 5%?

[Caninope]

And it has to be church too, because you won't learn values and keep out of prison at Mosque (there you'll become a terrorist), or Synagogue (there you'll become a Wall Street banker), or a Buddhist temple (you'll become a hippie). Nope, only in the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ can you learn the fortitude to stay out of prison.

Does Bay Minette even have a mosque or synagogue?

[The Rich Port]

And it has to be church too, because you won't learn values and keep out of prison at Mosque (there you'll become a terrorist), or Synagogue (there you'll become a Wall Street banker), or a Buddhist temple (you'll become a hippie). Nope, only in the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ can you learn the fortitude to stay out of prison.

Does Bay Minette even have a mosque or synagogue?

Probably not.

[Sanguinthium]

i admit, everything except the affirmative action and general stance + arizona thing were jokes.

Affirmative action is reverse discrimination- i am not politically correct; i am generally considered a bigot.

anyway, Affirmative action, such as in new haven connecticuit when they denied white firefighters a promotion because not enough black firefighters did well on it -despite the fact on average blacks are less intellegent than whites which is a scientific fact- http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

I remember something about a fire department, a legal challenge, and qualified white firefighters being denied promotion. I remember thinking it was a bit wrong, in the sense of a well-intentioned law being applied with bad effects. Didn't it have something to do with requiring the fire squad to be multilingual though ... or perhaps I'm thinking of some other case.

That's what you should have linked to.

Because surely in firefighters we are looking for other talents and qualities besides IQ?

Right here, is someone who might have agreed with you on the firefighters case, if you hadn't so quickly pivoted it to "blacks are inferior" and pulled a link from your archive.

anyway, heres the case. its a little old, but its an example. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519/ns/us_news-life/t/reverse-discrimination-justices-weigh-case/

supreme cort upheld that this example of affirmative action is workplace discrimination, with the firefighters being penalized for being white.

No, the Supreme Court did not. Not according to your link, from 2009, before the SC ruled on the case.

Oh, and this link is the "liberal" NBC I've heard about? The article seems pretty even-handed to me.

so, you tell me; if YOU were in line for a promotion, but were denied it because not enough black people managed to qualify or apply, how would that make you feel?

I'd think it was pretty unfair.

But at least it would all come out into the open. Unlike if I worked for a private corporation, who would have done the same thing but covered their tracks.

---

Bring a Kindle. Tell everyone it's the Bible. Then read something else.

Win.

It says in OP's article, that participants in the program may have to answer questions about what they heard in church.

If the question is "who begat Erech?" then they're screwed. For that matter, the priest would probably be screwed too.

..and whoever administers the test.
im with the kindle idea!

sorry, gave you a older link; heres the one that tells their decision- http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/new-haven-firefighters-opinions-contributors-racial-equality.html

NBC is liberal? only network with political leanings i know of is fox, and they dont even treat their fellow conservatives well. did you notice how they keep mentioniny the "triad of romney perry and bachman" despite the fact ron paul BEAT bachman. they then say that John Huntsman has a chance.. still not mentioning ron paul... even though he gained a resounding.. 69 votes at aimes. he lost.. to the guy who quit because he lost so bad.

anyway, the firefighters werent looking for IQ. that was me making a point. however, the Firefighters thing did a test for a promotion. like what is the best way to put out an oil fire or whatever i imagine. 20 people qualified for the promotion. 18 whites, 2 Latino. the city of new haven then through out the case because no black people passed. the firefighters sued, and then the Supreme court agreed (see new link )

oh, and of course the NAACP threw a massive fit, and this is an example of how affirmative action is simply racism against whites.

anyway, heres a great bit for you to read; TL;DR, in essence.

The Court's majority agreed. In this case, the city painstakingly developed a promotion examination linked to job performance. However, as Justice Anthony Kennedy observed for the majority, "after the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the city's refusal to certify the results." When no blacks and only two Hispanics qualified for promotion, the city threw out the test rather than face an adverse-impact lawsuit from minority candidates. That, the Court ruled, violated the rights of the non-minority candidates who studied hard and passed the exam.

[Caninope]

Does Bay Minette even have a mosque or synagogue?

Probably not.

So, then tell me, how in the world can they offer synagogues or mosques as alternatives?

[Caffeinetopia]

Probably not.

So, then tell me, how in the world can they offer synagogues or mosques as alternatives?

If there aren't enough Jews/Muslims in the area to even have a synagogue/mosque, why are we even worried about this?

[Sanguinthium]

So, then tell me, how in the world can they offer synagogues or mosques as alternatives?

If there aren't enough Jews/Muslims in the area to even have a synagogue/mosque, why are we even worried about this?

this is what ive been saying.

[AiliailiA]

So, then tell me, how in the world can they offer synagogues or mosques as alternatives?

If there aren't enough Jews/Muslims in the area to even have a synagogue/mosque, why are we even worried about this?

I'm worried about it even if the offender is a southern baptist and there are three baptist churches within a five minute walk of their house.

"Go to church" should never be anything but a completely voluntary act.

[AiliailiA]

I remember something about a fire department, a legal challenge, and qualified white firefighters being denied promotion. I remember thinking it was a bit wrong, in the sense of a well-intentioned law being applied with bad effects. Didn't it have something to do with requiring the fire squad to be multilingual though ... or perhaps I'm thinking of some other case.

That's what you should have linked to.

Because surely in firefighters we are looking for other talents and qualities besides IQ?

Right here, is someone who might have agreed with you on the firefighters case, if you hadn't so quickly pivoted it to "blacks are inferior" and pulled a link from your archive.



No, the Supreme Court did not. Not according to your link, from 2009, before the SC ruled on the case.

Oh, and this link is the "liberal" NBC I've heard about? The article seems pretty even-handed to me.



I'd think it was pretty unfair.

But at least it would all come out into the open. Unlike if I worked for a private corporation, who would have done the same thing but covered their tracks.

---

It says in OP's article, that participants in the program may have to answer questions about what they heard in church.

If the question is "who begat Erech?" then they're screwed. For that matter, the priest would probably be screwed too.

..and whoever administers the test.
im with the kindle idea!

sorry, gave you a older link; heres the one that tells their decision- http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/new-haven-firefighters-opinions-contributors-racial-equality.html

Yes it does.

I quote from it, starting with the first word of it:

Today the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New Haven, Conn., decision to jettison a firefighter test that the city felt promoted too few minorities

Right, so, the decision didn't stand. The Connecticut court was over-ruled, and this particular example of "reverse discrimination" no longer applies because it was over-ruled.

*cough*

This is exactly why I objected to your outdated link. Because you see, I knew this already. It was a bad decision by a lower court and it did not stand.

The rest of your post, where you chummy up to me and then at the end try to turn it around to you being right all along about the law being reverse-discriminatory ... nah. Bugger that. It's federal law, and when tested at the highest level it did NOT discriminate against white or hispanic firefighters. The city fire department made a bad decision (to sideline the test) based on their misunderstanding of the law, and when it all ended (in the SCOTUS) they were wrong. They misunderstood the law.

Nothing about that shows that the law is wrong.

[The Rich Port]

If there aren't enough Jews/Muslims in the area to even have a synagogue/mosque, why are we even worried about this?

this is what ive been saying.

Then again, I don't think that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Sucrati]

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!

Okay, we'll give you, the criminal two choices:

You can substitute jail time by going to church.
OR
You can stick it out here, and not go to church, though you won't get any time off.

Hmm. Tell me, and QUOTE the exact clause that says 'separation of church and state' Thomas Jefferson wrote that in a letter about how he felt about it, but it is not in the First Amendment.

So, if you're religious rights are being trampled on by Atheist and Secular organizations, the ACLU doesn't care, but if the government gives you a choice to leave jail to attend church, or another religious institution, as a substitute for staying in jail, the ACLU is all over it? Wow, talk about irony.

[The Rich Port]

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


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

Okay, we'll give you, the criminal two choices:

You can substitute jail time by going to church.
OR
You can stick it out here, and not go to church, though you won't get any time off.

Hmm. Tell me, and QUOTE the exact clause that says 'separation of church and state' Thomas Jefferson wrote that in a letter about how he felt about it, but it is not in the First Amendment.

So, if you're religious rights are being trampled on by Atheist and Secular organizations, the ACLU doesn't care, but if the government gives you a choice to leave jail to attend church, or another religious institution, as a substitute for staying in jail, the ACLU is all over it? Wow, talk about irony.

The letter referred to is probably Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Priests.

Constitution 101:

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

That is, Congress shall make no law that restricts the speech of a religious establishment, but neither shall it pass legislation that gives a religious institution legislative, jurisdictional, or executive power.

Letting someone serve their time by going to church counts as jurisdictional or incarceratory powers. IMO, though, this seems more like community service. What exactly was the offense of the people in the article?

[Naurobia]

This is very messed up in so many ways that I can't describe.