Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Salandriagado]

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

Since when has that happened?

Please learn to read posts before replying to them.

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.

No, it's saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". If a law was passed saying that anyone that doesn't go to church goes to jail, that would be saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". How are they different?

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.

No, it's leaving them in jail, whilst letting those that do out. It's simple discrimination.

[Sanguinthium]

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.

they are not being forced; they broke the law. they choose their PUNISHMENT to be either jail time or church or community service (last one depends on the crime, of course). and the 1st amendment only covers congress. not state legislatures. "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[Der Teutoniker]

In response to the actual situation itself:

I like the idea. I would like it even better if it were expanded, or at least worked upon.

I dunno. I like the idea, but it does need work.

[Salandriagado]

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.

they are not being forced; they broke the law. they choose their PUNISHMENT to be either jail time or church or community service (last one depends on the crime, of course). and the 1st amendment only covers congress. not state legislatures. "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Yes, it does. It respects the various religious establishments involved, by forcing people to go to them, with jail as a punishment if they don't.

[Sanguinthium]

Since when has that happened?

Please learn to read posts before replying to them.

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.

No, it's saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". If a law was passed saying that anyone that doesn't go to church goes to jail, that would be saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". How are they different?

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.

No, it's leaving them in jail, whilst letting those that do out. It's simple discrimination.

ffs... it said synogauges and mosques are included in the program, just less than christian churches. and i doubt there is a single jew or muslim in the area this affects, considering muslims make up less than 2% of the population, the same as jews.

its simple; the criminal chooses to go to church because he boosted a car. or mosque. or synogauge. just because there as less synogauges in alabama than churches means nothing. if an atheist doesnt want to go to church, he can serve his time. i really dont understand why anyone cares what happens to criminals in a state that they dont live in. they arent being sent to jail because they didnt go to church; they are in jail because they stole or something, and can go to church every week for a few months. i can barely wake up at 7:00 on a week day, much less a weekend.
if you want affirmative action, just go on and say your racist against whites.

[Salandriagado]

Please learn to read posts before replying to them.



No, it's saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". If a law was passed saying that anyone that doesn't go to church goes to jail, that would be saying "if you go to church, you don't go to jail". How are they different?



No, it's leaving them in jail, whilst letting those that do out. It's simple discrimination.

ffs... it said synogauges and mosques are included in the program, just less than christian churches. and i doubt there is a single jew or muslim in the area this affects, considering muslims make up less than 2% of the population, the same as jews.

How many establishments it effects is entirely irrelevant. It still respects an establishment of religion and contains an inbuilt bias towards religion.

its simple; the criminal chooses to go to church because he boosted a car. or mosque. or synogauge. just because there as less synogauges in alabama than churches means nothing. if an atheist doesnt want to go to church, he can serve his time.

The bold is the problem. The atheist will be serving time that a religious person, having committed an identical crime, would not. That is discrimination, simple.

i really dont understand why anyone cares what happens to criminals in a state that they dont live in.

Because you know, some of us care about the rights of others, not just about ourselves.

[quote[they arent being sent to jail because they didnt go to church; they are in jail because they stole or something, and can go to church every week for a few months. i can barely wake up at 7:00 on a week day, much less a weekend.[/quote]

The go to church -> they get out of jail earlier. That is discrimination, simple.

if you want affirmative action, just go on and say your racist against whites.

Where the fuck did you get that strawman from? Where did I mention anything about religion, or affirmative action of any kind? I've simply called for a lack of bias towards religion.

[Dyakovo]

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.

they are not being forced¹; they broke the law. they choose their PUNISHMENT to be either jail time or church or community service (last one depends on the crime, of course). and the 1st amendment only covers congress. not state legislatures. "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"²

1: Yes, they are. It is being forced upon them by the court. Unless you're going to try arguing that they can opt out of any punishment at all.
2: There's this little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment... Ever heard of it? The U.S. Constitution applies to state governments as well as the federal government.

[Dyakovo]

In response to the actual situation itself:

I like the idea. I would like it even better if it were expanded, or at least worked upon.

I dunno. I like the idea, but it does need work.

Yeah, like eliminating the part about church attendance as an "option".

[Big Jim P]

they are not being forced¹; they broke the law. they choose their PUNISHMENT to be either jail time or church or community service (last one depends on the crime, of course). and the 1st amendment only covers congress. not state legislatures. "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"²

1: Yes, they are. It is being forced upon them by the court. Unless you're going to try arguing that they can opt out of any punishment at all.
2: There's this little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment... Ever heard of it? The U.S. Constitution applies to state governments as well as the federal government.

Dya, another xtian sees no prob with his religion being forced on someone else. Not worth the argument.

[Dyakovo]

1: Yes, they are. It is being forced upon them by the court. Unless you're going to try arguing that they can opt out of any punishment at all.
2: There's this little thing called the Fourteenth Amendment... Ever heard of it? The U.S. Constitution applies to state governments as well as the federal government.

Dya, another xtian sees no prob with his religion being forced on someone else. Not worth the argument.

I'm having fun pointing out his ignorance anyways...

[Big Jim P]

Dya, another xtian sees no prob with his religion being forced on someone else. Not worth the argument.

I'm having fun pointing out his ignorance anyways...

Fair enough. If I could get angry about this BS anymore, this would piss me off to no end.

Getting mellow in my old age.

[Idealismania]

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

Agreed. It isn't theocratic, it's trying to rehabilitate criminals without using state funding. I'll give them a point for creativity, I guess.

agreed. The powers that be probably assume if criminals were exposed to the morality of religion it would turn them around to upstanding citizens. I don't see what the problem is as long as it's a choice. Like at one time people could either choose to go to jail or join the military. I'm a Christian, but if I could choose between going to jail or going to a temple or a mosque or any place of worship besides my own for a year, I would definately pick the religious choice. I would see it as a cross culture experience. And that would beat getting butt raped.

[Big Jim P]

Agreed. It isn't theocratic, it's trying to rehabilitate criminals without using state funding. I'll give them a point for creativity, I guess.

agreed. The powers that be probably assume if criminals were exposed to the morality of religion it would turn them around to upstanding citizens. I don't see what the problem is as long as it's a choice. Like at one time people could either choose to go to jail or join the military. I'm a Christian, but if I could choose between going to jail or going to a temple or a mosque or any place of worship besides my own for a year, I would definately pick the religious choice. I would see it as a cross culture experience. And that would beat getting butt raped.

Would you attend a Wiccan meet? A service at a Satanic Grotto?

[Idealismania]

sure. It would be very interesting to me.

[Big Jim P]

sure. It would be very interesting to me.

Earned a point. I will remember you.

[Idealismania]

sure. It would be very interesting to me.

Earned a point. I will remember you.

[Big Jim P]

Earned a point. I will remember you.

^see jimmy all huggy.

Really. Would you? This is intended to get more asses into the xtian pews, and illegal to boot.

[Der Teutoniker]

Yeah, like eliminating the part about church attendance as an "option".

Yes and no.

I like the idea of a non-taxpayer funded alternative.

And I like the idea of religious services as a possible substitute. That being said, I don't care for the idea of it being jail time, or church. If there a non-religious third option, I'd be much happier with that.

[Big Jim P]

Yeah, like eliminating the part about church attendance as an "option".

Yes and no.

I like the idea of a non-taxpayer funded alternative.

And I like the idea of religious services as a possible substitute. That being said, I don't care for the idea of it being jail time, or church. If there a non-religious third option, I'd be much happier with that.

DT, it all comes down to what churches (religions) are acceptable.

[Der Teutoniker]

DT, it all comes down to what churches (religions) are acceptable.

Yeah. It would be nice if there was a non-religiously biased group that could evaluate the area's services.

I definitely support the option to allow other religion's services as options.

[Dyakovo]

Yeah, like eliminating the part about church attendance as an "option".

Yes and no.

I like the idea of a non-taxpayer funded alternative.

And I like the idea of religious services as a possible substitute. That being said, I don't care for the idea of it being jail time, or church. If there a non-religious third option, I'd be much happier with that.

I like the idea of asshats not trying to violate the constitution. Apparently you disagree.

[Der Teutoniker]

I like the idea of asshats not trying to violate the constitution. Apparently you disagree.

Well, naturally I disagree with the ridiculous strawman you set up.

[Dyakovo]

I like the idea of asshats not trying to violate the constitution. Apparently you disagree.

Well, naturally I disagree with the ridiculous strawman you set up.

It's not a strawman. You stated that you were okay with making churches agents of the state (that's what this does). This is in violation of the First Amendment. Thus you are (apparently) in favor of violating the constitution.
Not really all that hard to follow...

[Der Teutoniker]

It's not a strawman. You stated that you were okay with making churches agents of the state (that's what this does). This is in violation of the First Amendment. Thus you are (apparently) in favor of violating the constitution.
Not really all that hard to follow...

I guess I don't see this as empowering churches to be agents of the State at all.

When criminals are sentenced to stay in a mental institution, and said institutions ever private? If so, then that changes the game right there.

But I'm sure you won't mind explaining how, exactly, this would make a particular religious service an agent of the State directly.

[Homosexy]

This is ridiculous. This is a total violation of separation between church and state. If someone committed a crime, they can go ahead and go to jail, like everyone else has to, and serve their time for what they did, and take responsibilities for their actions, not be set free and just have to attend church. Not to mention, how do you figure no one is being forced? No one is going to choose jail over a year of church. The atheists aren't going to choose jail.They'll just deal with jail for a year and go about their business.There are way too many flaws in this. If you're going to not have criminals in jail, they should at least be doing something useful, like clean up the cities through community service, not comfortably attending church.