Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Sanguinthium]

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?

the church doesnt have judicial power; its not like the minister is the one who makes the decisions; most power he has is probably to sign an attendance sheet or something similar. if the JUDGE was a priest, had no law degree, and specified which church, than there would be an issue.

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

it is a voluntery act; they dont HAVE to go to church, they can go to jail or do community service or something. its merely a easier alternative.

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.

so, by your logic, since jim crow laws no longer stand, they werent discriminatory? and i really enjoy the irony of how you agree with me, and present it as disagreeing with me.

[Salandriagado]

it is a voluntery act; they dont HAVE to go to church, they can go to jail or do community service or something. its merely a easier alternative.

And how is that in any way different from arresting people who don't go to church?

[Sucrati]

it is a voluntery act; they dont HAVE to go to church, they can go to jail or do community service or something. its merely a easier alternative.

And how is that in any way different from arresting people who don't go to church?

Since when has that happened?

This idea is for people ALREADY serving time to get some time off for doing something voluntary, it's like a plea bargain or community service, something about the 5th Amendment comes to mind. People don't get arrested for not attending religious services here, otherwise Atheists would be the biggest portion of the Prison Population.

[Sanguinthium]

it is a voluntery act; they dont HAVE to go to church, they can go to jail or do community service or something. its merely a easier alternative.

And how is that in any way different from arresting people who don't go to church?

Because they chose to go to church instead of picking up beer cans on the side of the highway, or doing a month in jail or something. its not arresting people who dont go to church.

[Nothgual]

Just another way for the church to take advantage of people in fragile conditions.

[Sucrati]

Just another way for the church to take advantage of people in fragile conditions.

Fragile Conditions?

[Kobeanare]

And how is that in any way different from arresting people who don't go to church?

Because they chose to go to church instead of picking up beer cans on the side of the highway, or doing a month in jail or something. its not arresting people who dont go to church.

As far as I'm aware there isn't a community service option, so what you're actually saying is:

Because they chose to go to church instead of doing a month in jail

Which sounds a whole lot like jailing people for not going to church to me.

[Galloism]

Because they chose to go to church instead of picking up beer cans on the side of the highway, or doing a month in jail or something. its not arresting people who dont go to church.

As far as I'm aware there isn't a community service option, so what you're actually saying is:

Because they chose to go to church instead of doing a month in jail

Which sounds a whole lot like jailing people for not going to church to me.

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.

Dude, didn't even have to follow the link. It was posted here.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about the program outside the article in question.

[The shee species]

It shouldn't be there at all, religion has absolutely no place in secular law.

Thread^

[The Soviet Technocracy]

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?

Congress.

TBF it says nothing about state legislatures.

Jury is still out though.

[Sedon (Ancient)]

And people are worried about Muslims and Sharia Law, America should be worrying about it's own home-grown Taliban.

Comparing this to the actions of the Taliban and other extremist groups in the Middle-East is ridiculous. People die due to some of the tenants of Sharia law. Of course, there are plenty of cases of people being killed by Christian fundamentalists, but not in this case.

That said, this is an incredibly stupid idea. I hope this law is overturned swiftly.

[Norstal]

Probably not.

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

It's not like you can't refer to those places of worship outside the region. Or even make the associated ritual inside the churches.

[New Manvir]

And people are worried about Muslims and Sharia Law, America should be worrying about it's own home-grown Taliban.

Comparing this to the actions of the Taliban and other extremist groups in the Middle-East is ridiculous. People die due to some of the tenants of Sharia law. Of course, there are plenty of cases of people being killed by Christian fundamentalists, but not in this case.

They're both just ignorant populist right-wing movements steeped in excessive nationalism and religious fundamentalism. I see no reason to differentiate, especially considering the Tea Party seems to be a fan of letting people die. How many people would die if the Tea Party were in power?

[Sedon (Ancient)]

Comparing this to the actions of the Taliban and other extremist groups in the Middle-East is ridiculous. People die due to some of the tenants of Sharia law. Of course, there are plenty of cases of people being killed by Christian fundamentalists, but not in this case.

They're both just ignorant populist right-wing movements steeped in excessive nationalism and religious fundamentalism. I see no reason to differentiate, especially considering the Tea Party seems to be a fan of letting people die. How many people would die if the Tea Party were in power?

Letting people die is no where near as bad as stoning people to death do to them being raped. Once more, those Tea Party people are letting those people die because they don't want to spend a tiny amount of money to save their lives, not because of religious reasons. The topic at hand is criminals being forced to go to church or go to jail, a law which, as stupid as it is, does not intentionally kill people.

[New Manvir]

They're both just ignorant populist right-wing movements steeped in excessive nationalism and religious fundamentalism. I see no reason to differentiate, especially considering the Tea Party seems to be a fan of letting people die. How many people would die if the Tea Party were in power?

Letting people die is no where near as bad as stoning people to death do to them being raped. Once more, those Tea Party people are letting those people die because they don't want to spend a tiny amount of money to save their lives, not because of religious reasons.

Because letting people die because you don't want to pay for health care and easily preventable diseases is so much better.

I see no reason to differentiate. The only reason one is more civilized than the other is because one lived in the lap of luxury in the most powerful first-world nation in the world, while the other lived in a constantly war-torn fourth-world shithole. The Tea-Party is America's Taliban, their core ideologies and mindsets are pretty much the same.

[Caffeinetopia]

this is what ive been saying.

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

What? That's one of the main legs the ACLU's argument is standing on (and everyone who's saying "what about mosques?").

Just another way for the church to take advantage of people in fragile conditions.

Yes, a much more caring environment is required. Like the one you would find in a jail.

[Dyakovo]

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

Constitution 101:



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?

Congress.

TBF it says nothing about state legislatures.

Jury is still out though.

The Fourteenth Amendment says it does.

[Al-Harakut al-Islami]

Well-meaning intentions, but they're going about it in the entirely wrong way.

^this.

[Big Jim P]

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?

The same objection we have about pre-game prayers at school games: the people who advocate it are intending that nothing but xtian prayers (or in this case xtian churches) are spoken (attended). What of the myriad other faiths of humanity? Do you think that the intent was that a muslim man attending sevices at a mosque would count? How about a Saatnist? A Wiccan? A Odinist? et al.

Face it, the instant you get away form the xtian bias, these people would shit a brick.

[Sanguinthium]

Because they chose to go to church instead of picking up beer cans on the side of the highway, or doing a month in jail or something. its not arresting people who dont go to church.

As far as I'm aware there isn't a community service option, so what you're actually saying is:

Because they chose to go to church instead of doing a month in jail

Which sounds a whole lot like jailing people for not going to church to me.

For fucking sake- did you even read the OP? some 1st time nonviolent offender say, boosts a car. instead of doing Jail time/community service, he can go to church for a year.
its the PUNISHMENT for the CRIME.

[Big Jim P]

As far as I'm aware there isn't a community service option, so what you're actually saying is:



Which sounds a whole lot like jailing people for not going to church to me.

For fucking sake- did you even read the OP? some 1st time nonviolent offender say, boosts a car. instead of doing Jail time/community service, he can go to church for a year.
its the PUNISHMENT for the CRIME.

Still, they are being coerced into attending church.

[Sanguinthium]

For fucking sake- did you even read the OP? some 1st time nonviolent offender say, boosts a car. instead of doing Jail time/community service, he can go to church for a year.
its the PUNISHMENT for the CRIME.

Still, they are being coerced into attending church.

these are criminals. they steal something, or do something nonviolent and are 1st time offenders.
no.. they are given the OPTION to go to church for a few months instead of picking up trash for 120 hours, or doing a month in jail or something.
they are under NO obligation to go to church; they CHOOSE the OPTION for THEMSELVES.

[Big Jim P]

Still, they are being coerced into attending church.

these are criminals. they steal something, or do something nonviolent and are 1st time offenders.
no.. they are given the OPTION to go to church for a few months instead of picking up trash for 120 hours, or doing a month in jail or something.
they are under NO obligation to go to church; they CHOOSE the OPTION for THEMSELVES.

They have the option to attend a CHRISTIAN church, being coerced by the state. If you think the word "church" meant anything but christian, then you are sadly deluded. It is, at best, discriminatory against non-christians.

[Dyakovo]

Still, they are being coerced into attending church.

these are criminals. they steal something, or do something nonviolent and are 1st time offenders.
no.. they are given the OPTION to go to church for a few months instead of picking up trash for 120 hours, or doing a month in jail or something.
they are under NO obligation to go to church; they CHOOSE the OPTION for THEMSELVES.

An option provided by the state, making the church an agent of the state, thus in violation of the First Amendment. Oh, and yeah they are being forced. They have two options forced upon them: go to church or go to jail.

[Der Teutoniker]

Which sounds a whole lot like jailing people for not going to church to me.

Gallo already covered that, but even still, it is not being jailed for not going to church.

Jim Johnson, the Alabaman electrician with no priors, and no criminal record will not be arrested, nor will he be criminally charged because he did not go to church last Sunday.

This is being offered as an alternative to jail time. You understand the difference between the two things right?