• 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?

Krhazy said:
Yes, because that's obviously a fair reading of my position from what I wrote. [/sarcasm] You are ignoring the fact that there are other, non-religious solutions to accomplish the same goal. The choice isn't between AA and addiction forever. The choice is between AA and a similar but non-religious program.
Click to expand...

i can't think of one, can you?



I'd rather them be in jail and doing community service.
Click to expand...
bring back the chain gangs and make them pick up trash on the side of the road or scrub graffitti off of bridge underpasses or something.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems to me this would be unconstitutional for he same reason school prayer in public schools is unconstitutional -- it's a step towards the government establishing religion.
Click to expand...

um... seems to me you said this once already. post #515 = post #526 either your alzheimers is kicking in or that has got to be a world record for the slowest double post in history
 
Last edited:
I also seem to recall some church which smoked weed as one of its "spiritual" rituals; I imagine a church like that would be a popular choice among inmates.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Trolling and personal insults need to stop. Thank you.
 
Thunder said:
that's cute, by sentencing a convict to serve time by going to Church once a week or going to jail for a year, violating the 1st Amendment.

its funny how Conservatives love to wave the Constitution in Liberals' faces....up until the point when the Constitution runs counter to their own agenda & beliefs.
Click to expand...

I play for my team, you play for yours.
 
roguenuke said:
Dodge much?
Click to expand...

Only when I can't think of a good straw-man.

roguenuke said:
Who's saying it has anything to do with the church or the church should hold any responsibility for it? Nothing changes for the churches if this program is not allowed to be enacted. There is no penalty being laid on any of the churches if the program is changed to include secular options or if it is dropped altogether. And if any church is gaining any sort of financial advantage from the state from the enactment of this program and would lose that if it got put down, well then that is just one more point against the program to show that it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there are all these different religious groups out there who are also qualified to conduct this service, and the state is ONLY allowing Christin organizations?

Or are you saying that only Christians are stepping up to help while everyone slacks off?

roguenuke said:
No one in fact faces any actual penalty from not enacting this program. Unless they cannot come up with an alternative program that is acceptable, the city will still be responsible for the funding to house the criminals that may have had this option, but they can always come up with a secular program of alternative sentencing, such as mandatory community service, that would take care of that.
Click to expand...

Or some secular folks need to get a 501c3 going and dip into that government money for themselves. No one likes paying taxes, go get some of it back. Hell if you have a business I'm sure a 501c3 would come in handy for shelter-er, I mean, charitable tax-deductible contributions.

The left never had a problem doing this when it came to lying about the Apocali-um, wait, that's global warming.
 
Jerry said:
So you're saying there are all these different religious groups out there who are also qualified to conduct this service, and the state is ONLY allowing Christin organizations?

Or are you saying that only Christians are stepping up to help while everyone slacks off?

Or some secular folks need to get a 501c3 going and dip into that government money for themselves. No one likes paying taxes, go get some of it back. Hell if you have a business I'm sure a 501c3 would come in handy for shelter-er, I mean, charitable tax-deductible contributions.

The left never had a problem doing this when it came to lying about the Apocali-um, wait, that's global warming.
Click to expand...

What service? Preaching about the Bible or teaching people about a specific religion's beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are, is not a community service. That is what we are talking about here. It isn't like those offered this choice are required to actually get any help or go to any other specific church meetings or take any self-improvement classes that are only being offered by the churches. They are only required to attend church services, as in Sunday preaching hour(s), to hear about that church's particular views on how a higher power expects a person to behave and what may happen in the afterlife should you not follow those expectations.

No one has a problem with a church being able to be involved in certain punishments when the religion of the church has little to do with what the point of the involvement is. The point of having someone do community service is to have the person make up for something they did by helping others. Even if the community service is being performed at a soup kitchen run by a church, the point of the soup kitchen is not to preach about the beliefs of that church but to help people which is in line with the secular point of the punishment.
 
OscarB63 said:
\

that is a totally separate arguement. abortion = killing whether you want to consider a fetus a human or not is irrelevent. which is why I brought up the animal shelter example.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but the word infanticide has a specific meaning, and it doesn't apply to fetuses.
 
OscarB63 said:
which is totally irrelevent since the church, in no way, shape or form, materially benefits from having that criminal sitting in their services.
Click to expand...

Ok. First, the tax treatment is irrelevant- I posited it as an example of other special treatment of religious organizations.

Second, the issue of the church benefiting from the attendees is irrelevant to the point of "serving time" still being a special provision under law not afforded secular entities.
 
How would all the Conservatives in this thread feel if the convict was Muslim and the judge gave him the option of 1 year in jail or 1 year of being free but going to Mosque and learning about the Qur'an every Friday eve for a year?
 
Jerry said:
They don't pay taxes for other, unrelated reasons...mainly being that it keeps religion out of the government.

If Joe Shmuck did something stupid and was sentenced to, say, 40 hours of community service, how are you directly affected if he serves through a church program as opposed to another program? He shows up in the same clothes, and does the same kind of work. The only difference is that the person who validates his time may have a religious title in their name.

Links demonstrating how you are materially harmed are appreciated, but not required.
Click to expand...

I don't accept personal material harm as a reasonable bar. As a matter of fact, it's rather ridiculous. I wouldn't be harmed at all by a law allowing the enslavement of Canadians, but it would still be immoral, unfair, and unconstitutional.
 
Thunder said:
How would all the Conservatives in this thread feel if the convict was Muslim and the judge gave him the option of 1 year in jail or 1 year of being free but going to Mosque and learning about the Qur'an every Friday eve for a year?
Click to expand...
Indifferent, the same way I feel about it before you added a moronic hypothetical.
 
Thunder said:
moronic? how is it moronic?
Click to expand...
You mean other than you were race baiting ALL conservatives for one, or secondly how you made a hypothetical to fit your obvious biases against conservatives, or third how it falls in line with your hate of "tea baggers" and your prior (different thread) about Herman Cain only this time you switched it up and used "Muslim". A missed opportunity on your part, you could have said "African Muslim".

Thunder said:
it is identical to the situation in the OP, except the convict is a Muslim.
Click to expand...
See comment above.
 
Thunder said:
that's very dishonest, since I mentioned nothing about race.
Click to expand...
No, but you mentioned Muslim ... which is ... which is the Liberal code word ... for racism!
 
roguenuke said:
But that is how it is ruled on today and how most people see it.
Click to expand...

Then the issue should return to the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is quite clear but, like the Commerce clause and Roe vs. Wade, it has been interpreted differently by judges who appear to be motivated more by their own feelings rather then what the Constitution clearly states.

And while ignoring the intent and the letter of the Constitution might satisfy those who want changes outside the usual route designed by the originators, these fashionable trends ignoring the letter and spirit of the Constitution inevitably divides the country, just as we see happening today.
 
Krhazy said:
Yes, because that's obviously a fair reading of my position from what I wrote. [/sarcasm]

You are ignoring the fact that there are other, non-religious solutions to accomplish the same goal. You are also trying to turn a debate about legislation into some debate about the choices of individuals which assumes that the legislation is the only option. The choice isn't between AA and addiction forever, nor is it a choice between religious community service and prison. The choice here is between crafting a statute that favors religious institutions versus a statute that is secular. I don't see any logical or constitutional reason to favor the former.



I'd rather them be in jail and doing community service.
Click to expand...

It's good to see the Leftists are becoming tough on crime.

Threatening to send criminals to Church on Sundays might be sufficient for their support for the death penalty.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Seems to me this would be unconstitutional for he same reason school prayer in public schools is unconstitutional -- it's a step towards the government establishing religion.
Click to expand...

A step is not establishing and, besides, the Christian Church is already very well established.
 
Grant said:
It's good to see the Leftists are becoming tough on crime.

Threatening to send criminals to Church on Sundays might be sufficient for their support for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I'd take death rather than being dumbed down and lied to
 
Grant said:
Then the issue should return to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Why? The Supreme Court has ruled on it many times already.

  • 1948: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.​

  • 1961: Torcaso v. Watkins
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.​

  • 1962: Engel v. Vitale
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.​

  • 1963: Abington School District v. Schempp
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.​

  • 1968: Epperson v. Arkansas
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.​

  • 1980: Stone v. Graham
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.​

  • 1985: Wallace v. Jaffree
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.​

  • 1987: Edwards v. Aquillard
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.​

  • 1989: Allegheny County v. ACLU
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.​

  • 1992: Lee v. Weisman
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom