• 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?

Grant said:
It's now illegal in the United States to chose your punishment when it's offered? When did that start?
Click to expand...

stop playing games. the choice of going to Church every Sunday violates the Establishment Clause. Give the guy a secular alternative to Church AND jail.
 
Thunder said:
you contend that my statement was a strawman.

prove it, or stop making ignorant & baseless accusation.
Click to expand...

first resort of a feeble mind: when faced with a statement they cannot refute, squeal "prove it"
 
OscarB63 said:
first resort of a feeble mind: when faced with a statement they cannot prove, squeal "I don't have to provide evidence"
Click to expand...


edited for accuracy.

my friend, you have accused me of making a strawman argument. Prove it, or your accusation is an ignorant lie.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
edited for accuracy.

my friend, you have accused me of making a strawman argument. Prove it, or your accusation is an ignorant lie.
Click to expand...

dude, 70% of your posts contain the words "prove it", the other 30% contain some BS baseless accusation or random comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
 
OscarB63 said:
dude, 70% of your posts contain the words "prove it", the other 30% contain some BS baseless accusation or random comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Click to expand...

you made an accusation. you have failed to back up your accusation.

I would appreciate you not lie about my posts.
 
Grant said:
So all this hand wringing was for naught?
Click to expand...

Considering I have no plans to ever go through Alabama, let alone stop in that particular town and commit a crime, I'm not wringing my hands about this affecting me at all.

I was showing how this punishment option can not possibly be given fairly to everyone with my own personal example of my beliefs. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who has religious beliefs that clash with most religions, and especially most Christian denominations. Plus, there is no way to accommodate atheists within this punishment option with an equivalent punishment option.

It is on hold now, but it is still possible that the state attorney will (wrongly) tell them to go ahead with this program and it would then end up in court.
 
I'm going to re-post my summary of the issues raised in this thread. I already posted this in the other thread on this subject, but someone started a new one. Here are the Constitutional issues:

1) Equal Protection under the 14th amendment -

Religious convicts and non-religious convicts alike now have the option of eschewing a jail sentence if they go to church. This means that religious people have the option of avoiding a jail sentence by doing something they already are inclined to do, and would presumably do anyhow, whereas non-religious people have to choose between two bad options: going to jail or subjecting themselves to theological practices in which they do not believe. Consequently the two classes of people are being treated differently in the eyes of the law. Ergo, equal protection violation. The harm in this situation is specifically that they are not being treated equally under the law on the basis of religious belief.

2) Establishment Clause

The issue here is that the government is endorsing religious practice (as opposed to the absence of religious practice) by declaring it a viable substitute for a jail sentence. The harm is imposition of religion on prisoners (which is why they, and not you or I, would have standing to sue). The establishment clause wouldn't be an issue if, for example, the law included a non-jail non-religious option as well (say, community service, or a philosophy class on ethics, or something).

I) We can see that this law violates the establishment clause if we apply the Lemon test (which I think you referenced already, so I'm not going to explain what it is):

a) Is there a secular legislative purpose?

My guess is that the stated "secular" legislative purpose is the advancement of morality, or some such thing. I certainly can't think of another one. Various cases have taken issue with exactly this kind of thinking in situations where the presumption is that religion = morality. It seems pretty clear to me that the actual purpose of this law is the advancement of religion. If the goal were to advance morality, there are non-religious means of doing so (e.g. a civics class, parenting training, fostering an interest in promoting community service, etc). I am, by the way, parroting the reasoning of SCOTUS on this issue (can't remember which case - I'll look it up sometime if you're interested). To be clear, proving purpose in this context is notoriously difficult, and is frequently based on transcripts of legislative commentary on the law.

b) Is the principal or primary effect of this law the advancement of religion?

It seems pretty clear in this case that the answer is yes. The whole idea is to get people to go to church. Obviously many people (myself included) would much rather waste one day a week listening to someone talk about theology than spend weeks or months in jail. So the law fails this element of the Lemon test.

c) Does the statute foster a government entanglement with religion?

This is the only part of the test that the statute doesn't fail. Because government isn't getting involved in how religions do their thing.

Despite passing the third part of the Lemon test, because the statute fails the first two parts, it is a violation of the establishment clause.

II) Alternatively we can apply the so-called Endorsement test to reach the same result

This test asks whether or not a reasonable person would perceive the government action at issue as an endorsement of religion. This test is somewhat more controversial, but it seems pretty clear that by providing a religious alternative to a jail term, and only a religious alternative, a reasonable person would perceive this law to be an endorsement of religion at the expense of secularism.

3) Free Exercise of Religion

This is the weakest of the three Constitutional arguments. Given that the first two are so much better, I'm mostly only adding it because I've already brought it up. The reasoning here would be that by forcing non-religious people to choose between going to jail or engaging in religious practices (i.e. going to church) that they don't condone, those people are being coerced into rescinding their own religious freedom. You're going to argue here that it's a choice to go to jail or participate in religion, but once again, this has the effect of favoring religious practices over non-religious practices. The test used, by the way, is whether or not this is a "neutral law of general applicability." Examples of neutral laws that do affect religious exercise but do not violate this clause include health code laws related to how meat is slaughtered (which can affect, e.g., Kosher practices, etc) and laws related to banning drug use by certain public employees (which can, and have, impacted the religious practices of certain Native American traditionalists).
 
Grant said:
Perhaps because religion had more to do with the philosophy behind the creation of the United States then did Saturday morning cartoons.



It seems you answered your own question.



You feel religion has never played a part in the formation of the American justice system?


I think we can see the damage overuse of drugs can do right here on this post.


Party on, Dude!
Click to expand...

Slavery also had a lot to do with the founding of the US system of justice... doesn't make it right.

And my jest about cartoon warriors was provided as a counter-example. Some people believe religious faith is a net loser for society, whereas Sponge Bob isn't.

Finally, victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes in the first place. That's all.
 
nijato said:
Slavery also had a lot to do with the founding of the US system of justice... doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Not to mention women being treated like property and not having the right to vote or work in certain places. Children being used for hard labor.

What amazes me is that some people hold the founding fathers in an almost "godlike" status. They were regular men whom did a great thing, but by no means was it perfect. Even they understood this which is why they allowed amendments.
 
OscarB63 said:
prove it....... :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...

Using your logic I cannot prove you are not a child molester. So does that mean since I cannot prove you aren't one that you are?
 
danarhea said:
What if the offender is an atheist? For this reason, I believe that this is unconstitutional. Community service? OK, that is good, but not something where the government is uncontitutionally forcing religion down someone's throat. Let the offender bust bricks or something instead.

Article is here.

Discussion?
Click to expand...

So atheists are incapable of performing community service through a church? Is it that they melt in water and don't cast a reflection, or does god send thunder and lightning when an atheist steps on 501c3 property?

No one said they had to practice any religion. They broke a law and Big Bro is giving them the option of serving hours at a local church, probably close to their home and/or child's school, instead of jail. What's not to like?
 
Jerry said:
So atheists are incapable of performing community service through a church? Is it that they melt in water and don't cast a reflection, or does god send thunder and lightning when an atheist steps on 501c3 property?

No one said they had to practice any religion. They broke a law and Big Bro is giving them the option of serving hours at a local church, probably close to their home and/or child's school, instead of jail. What's not to like?
Click to expand...
How do you feel about your tax dollars going to the benefit of Muslim mosques in cases where inmates make a mosque their choice?
 
Thunder said:
requiring a convict go to jail OR go to Church, advances religion, hence violates the second Lemon test.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the word CHOICE? Nobody is requiring anyone to go to church. Do you even know what the hell it is you are arguing or you just like to see yourself type?
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Have you ever heard of the word CHOICE? Nobody is requiring anyone to go to church. Do you even know what the hell it is you are arguing or you just like to see yourself type?
Click to expand...

the felon has a choice: go to church every Sunday for a year, or be in jail every day for a year.

without a secular alternative to a Christian Church on Sunday, this ruling violates the Establishment Clause of our Constitution, a document frequently waved around by Conservatives as holy.
 
Thunder said:
why can't they have a secular option?
Click to expand...

Those already exist. They always have, and show no sign of ever disappearing. Inmates at the junk yard, or clearing out the Hills, or picking up trash on the highway....etc.

Why aren't you crying fro all the theists who are forced to serve through those atheist options instead of a religious option?

Also, if the only church in the aria who has a qualifying community service program happens to be a Baptist church, Lutherans and Catholics are going to hate it even more than any atheist, so don't pretend atheists are some poor picked on minority.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How do you feel about your tax dollars going to the benefit of Muslim mosques in cases where inmates make a mosque their choice?
Click to expand...

oh, if a judge gave a Muslim felon such an option, the cries of "Sharia Law!!!" would be heard around the Globe.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
How do you feel about your tax dollars going to the benefit of Muslim mosques in cases where inmates make a mosque their choice?
Click to expand...

I don't pay taxes.

I haven't paid taxes in years.

Yes I file every year, but I'm part of the population who gets back more then we pay in, and shortly I'll be in a combat zone, so that's another tax-free year.

But how do I fee about your taxes supporting mosques? With this sort of program, I'm ok with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom