• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church?

read the thread. heck, just read this page.

question: is the reason this is a bad idea because it is unconstitutional or is it just a bad idea?
 
read the thread. heck, just read this page.

What I'm seeing is that there are some posters who appear to believe that the government is trying to establish a religion, though the name oof that new religion has yet to be mentioned..

Have they stopped teaching about US Constitution in American schools? What's going on?
 
Having a politician say "bless you" when somebody sneezed at a Press Conference would probably set off a 30 page thread on seperation of Church and State around here.
 
Having a politician say "bless you" when somebody sneezed at a Press Conference would probably set off a 30 page thread on seperation of Church and State around here.

Well couldn't he just say: "Should the higher power (or powers) of your choosing, should you choose to believe in one (or some), bless you?"
 
What I'm seeing is that there are some posters who appear to believe that the government is trying to establish a religion, though the name oof that new religion has yet to be mentioned..

Have they stopped teaching about US Constitution in American schools? What's going on?

Worthless posts can be made better by reading the thread and knowing what we are talking about. It's not like this was all secret, there's a few pages of arguments written and waiting for you to read and catch yourself up.
 
Having a politician say "bless you" when somebody sneezed at a Press Conference would probably set off a 30 page thread on seperation of Church and State around here.

And even less than that for people to post responses which have nothing to do with the thread and just engage in speculation and hyperbole.
 
becauase the Establishment Clause is the only part of the Constitution that is relevant in this case.
What difference does it make? Since when are convicts guaranteed Constitutional rights? It's a bad idea because it's too lenient, but I don't view this as a Constitutional issue.
 
What difference does it make? Since when are convicts guaranteed Constitutional rights? It's a bad idea because it's too lenient, but I don't view this as a Constitutional issue.

holy schmeg, I actually agree with you on something.

this may or may not be unconstitutional, but that has no bearing on the fact that it is a bad idea
 
What I'm seeing is that there are some posters who appear to believe that the government is trying to establish a religion, though the name oof that new religion has yet to be mentioned....

then you have been reading a different thread.
 
What difference does it make? Since when are convicts guaranteed Constitutional rights? It's a bad idea because it's too lenient, but I don't view this as a Constitutional issue.

It is a Constitutional violation because it gives a difference punishment/sentence to a person based on their religious beliefs, even if they both pick the same option of going to church. For a person who is already actively involved in a church in that town or who already attends church every Sunday, such a sentence imposes nothing on them while someone who is has no religion or does not attend a church in the town is being forced to change their life, at the very least to attend the church. This is not equivalent punishment for the same crime.

This also violates the Establishment Clause because no government official is allowed to legally require a person to attend any form of religious service, whether it is being done as an alternative to jail or fine or whatever. Convicts in prison cannot even be forced to attend any form of religious services.
 
This is clearly and comically unconstitutional.... but that could be easily remedied by the substitution of other activities for non-religious persons or people whose faith is not represented in the area (say, Sikhs.)
 
to me i see only to options 1) offer similar options for all religions or 2) watch as all non violent criminals serve there time at a church requardless of their beliefs and disrupt everyone at that church. I may sound like a religious nut saying this but i assure you i am not.
 
Since when are they not?

convicts are denied #2: keep and bear arms

and

convicts are denied #4: unreasonable search and seizure
 
ah, a legitimate question.

the answer: both.

if it's just a bad idea, does it really matter that it is unconstitutional?

in many places suicide is illegal (how they plan to prosecute is another question). is suicide a bad idea because it is illegal?
 
This is clearly and comically unconstitutional.... but that could be easily remedied by the substitution of other activities for non-religious persons or people whose faith is not represented in the area (say, Sikhs.)

this is clearly a bad idea because criminals belong in jail, not in church.
 
this is clearly a bad idea because criminals belong in jail, not in church.

I agree, I was just commenting on the unconstitutionality of the program.
 
Back
Top Bottom