• 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?

It is not discrimination if you have a choice.

It is discrimination because a person who is in a similar situation as me, but who has a different religious belief as me that requires them to attend church once a week, is being offered a punishment that is basically not a punishment at all just due to the difference in our religious beliefs. I would have the very likely potential of being subjected to religious persecution and/or ridicule, at the very least, just due to my lack of established religious beliefs, while this other person is simply allowed to continue with their life as normal because of their established religious beliefs. That is discrimination.
 
The bottom line is that this is an attempt to control cost and keep people who have committed misdemeanors from turning to hard crime by allowing them the choice to go to a religious service.

That being said, it's a stupid program because ,as it has been pointed out, almost everyone will choose church over jail. Just throw their ass in jail and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter how low those incidents are, as long as at least one person would be getting special treatment just due to their religious views, it is religious discrimination. I'm sure there are plenty of regular church goers who commit plenty of non-violent crimes.

That might be why they're in Church. To seek forgiveness for their sins, to pray for strength to meet life's challenges and to make them better people..

What do atheists do to make themselves better people? Just go to jail and hope to find the answers there?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Baiting and trolling and stupid **** needs to end, now. Any more and it will be points and a thread ban.
 
and how many times must you be told that it doesn't matter what he meant, only what he actually said?

Do try to keep up Oscar. :roll:

The entire thread is about what he meant, as what he said was nebulous. If we take his statement literally, criminals must attend a "church" and they must attend on Sunday. This may come as a surprise to you but some religions don't have churches and some religions don't meet on Sundays and some religions don't worship. Taken at his "word" a criminal then given the choice must has his ass in a building called a "church" and he/she must be there on Sundays or said criminal will face contempt charges, jail time and possibly more jail time.
 
speaking of steaming loads of horse****.

60% of males in Alabama jails are black, hardly "most" and there are actually more white females in Alabama jails than there are black females.

Might I suggest a class in numbers theory? When we consider 60% as a comparison it is either "equal", "less" or "most".
 
It is discrimination because a person who is in a similar situation as me, but who has a different religious belief as me that requires them to attend church once a week, is being offered a punishment that is basically not a punishment at all just due to the difference in our religious beliefs.

You can martyr yourself for your non-religious beliefs and go to jail anyway, just as would have been done without this program. The other miscreant might be an atheist and doesn't want to go to Church either, but can choose it as an alternative. Life is all about choices and you are being offered a couple here. The right one would appear obvious to me, but I don't chose to break laws either.

I would have the very likely potential of being subjected to religious persecution and/or ridicule,

As a crook you will have to learn to suck it up.
at the very least, just due to my lack of established religious beliefs, while this other person is simply allowed to continue with their life as normal because of their established religious beliefs. That is discrimination.

Do the crime, do the time. Don't whine about it when you get caught breaking the law. That's a poor way to start a criminal career.
 
It is discrimination because a person who is in a similar situation as me, but who has a different religious belief as me that requires them to attend church once a week, is being offered a punishment that is basically not a punishment at all just due to the difference in our religious beliefs. I would have the very likely potential of being subjected to religious persecution and/or ridicule, at the very least, just due to my lack of established religious beliefs, while this other person is simply allowed to continue with their life as normal because of their established religious beliefs. That is discrimination.

you must have attended some really lousy churches in your life. since you seem to be fixated on being persecuted and ridiculed. I have attended baptist churches, catholic churches, black missionary baptist churches, greek orthodox churches, mormon churches, mosques and never, ever, not a single freakin time was I persecuted or ridiculed.

however, I am sure I would've been received differently if I had made an ass of myself and stood up and told them they were full of **** because they didn't believe the way i believe :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Might I suggest a class in numbers theory? When we consider 60% as a comparison it is either "equal", "less" or "most".

wrong, more =/= most in the context you were using "most" , sorry
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
It is discrimination because a person who is in a similar situation as me, but who has a different religious belief as me that requires them to attend church once a week, is being offered a punishment that is basically not a punishment at all just due to the difference in our religious beliefs. I would have the very likely potential of being subjected to religious persecution and/or ridicule, at the very least, just due to my lack of established religious beliefs, while this other person is simply allowed to continue with their life as normal because of their established religious beliefs. That is discrimination.

If I request to be sent to an all women's prison and am denied, is that discrimination by gender? If I'm forced to have "activity time" but I'm an out of shape pudge, is that discrimination by healthy? What if all the prison cafeteria is serving that day is hamburgers, but it's Friday and I'm religiously opposed. Is that discrimination by religion?

You have absolutely no leg to stand on with that pseudo-argument. Choices don't always have to involve avenues that you agree with. You don't have that right.
 
Non religous as in not God oriented, or that DONT offer as a basic tenant a reliance on a higher power? And in your county? What if there wasnt one in your county?

keep dancing. You know the truth....so do I. Given the choice between AA and jail, MOST people would choose AA.

There are SOS groups.

And federal courts have actually ruled several times that mandatory AA meetings without a secular option do violate the Constitution.

Kerr v Farrey, Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation, Inouye v. Kemna

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
No.

So, in fact, I was wrong. AA meetings aren't even legal to be forced on a person, unless there is a secular alternative.
 
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?

General community service would suffice. Should he choose then to do it in a Church, that would be OK. Not sure about mandating that it be done through a church though.
 
No. We are "all up in arms" because there would be no problem with alleviating that cost by simply offering completely secular alternatives, such as counseling or community service, instead of injecting religion into the options at all.
Say...you should make that suggestion as a member of their community! You could even offer to sponsor some of the folks...maybe do some volunteer work with them or even head up the program where they do that community service. Perhaps they havent seen that as an option yet. Choices ROCK!

Nah...you dont really CARE enough for all that...you just enjoy the opportunity to bitch about something that has no relevant bearing on your life, regardless of how beneficial it may actually BE for others...because it involves religion.
 
There are SOS groups.

And federal courts have actually ruled several times that mandatory AA meetings without a secular option do violate the Constitution.

Kerr v Farrey, Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation, Inouye v. Kemna

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
No.

So, in fact, I was wrong. AA meetings aren't even legal to be forced on a person, unless there is a secular alternative.
You have a secular choice...stay in jail and pay your fine. Choices ROCK!
 
Who's mandating? If it's a choice between something you don't want and something you really don't want, you choose something you don't want.
 
this ruling allows a man to be free to walk the streets but he has to go to Church on Sunday....or he can be in jail for a year.

so he has a choice between not being punished for his crime, and being punished.

this is sooo illegal I can't believe it.
 
Terrific argument. You've just argued for the elimination of probation.

If you commit a crime, you go to jail. No probation for you.
 
Terrific argument. You've just argued for the elimination of probation.

If you commit a crime, you go to jail. No probation for you.

will this guy be on probation while he is free buy going to church every sunday?

will he have to check in with a PO monthly?
 
The bottom line is that this is an attempt to control cost and keep people who have committed misdemeanors from turning to hard crime by allowing them the choice to go to a religious service.

That being said, it's a stupid program because ,as it has been pointed out, almost everyone will choose church over jail. Just throw their ass in jail and leave it at that.

And so Jefferson County is paying for convicted drug/alcohol abusers to go to rehab rather than jail? Rehab has proven to be more effective and less expensive. Is Jefferson County and/or the judge referring to rehab rather than jail in an effort to save money?
 
Say...you should make that suggestion as a member of their community! You could even offer to sponsor some of the folks...maybe do some volunteer work with them or even head up the program where they do that community service. Perhaps they havent seen that as an option yet. Choices ROCK!

Nah...you dont really CARE enough for all that...you just enjoy the opportunity to bitch about something that has no relevant bearing on your life, regardless of how beneficial it may actually BE for others...because it involves religion.

It could be quite detrimental, unfairly, to some just due to their own established religious views or lack of religious beliefs. Church is not for everyone and the state has no right to mandate it to anyone, whether the person committed a crime or not. It isn't like just attending church in and of itself will actually help the person on a better path.

Community service is a much better way to get people who commit crimes to actually contribute to their communities. And community service is already an established alternative punishment option that in no way violates the Constitution. I highly doubt this community is ignorant of community service as alternative punishment. I don't doubt that at least some of them are ignorant of the Constitution.

This is about adhering to the Constitution.
 
You have a secular choice...stay in jail and pay your fine. Choices ROCK!

If one of the choices violates your freedom of religion, it is not a true choice. If one of the choices discriminates against you based on your religion/beliefs when compared to a person in a similar situation, the choice is unconstitutional. The only Constitutional way to make this choice legal is to ensure that a secular alternative is an option. Something that does not require religious attendance but is equal in "punishment" to the attending church option.
 
If one of the choices violates your freedom of religion, it is not a true choice. If one of the choices discriminates against you based on your religion/beliefs when compared to a person in a similar situation, the choice is unconstitutional. The only Constitutional way to make this choice legal is to ensure that a secular alternative is an option. Something that does not require religious attendance but is equal in "punishment" to the attending church option.

how does giving you the choice to go sit inside a church building violate your freedom of religion?

you guys keep ignoring the fact that no one is being forced to participate in worship, no one is being forced to pay attention to the pastor, no one is being forced to even stay awake during the service.

the option is "attend church"

my mother forced my father to "attend church" for over 30 years. I don't think he ever heard a single sermon from start to finish.
 
Last edited:
how does giving you the choice to go sit inside a church building violate your freedom of religion?

you guys keep ignoring the fact that no one is being forced to participate in worship, no one is being forced to pay attention to the pastor, no one is being forced to even stay awake during the service.

If this was even close to relevant to how the law views a violation of freedom of religion, then laws mandating church attendance for all would still be legal/Constitutional. Guess what, they're not.

And I provided court cases where it was shown where simply forcing attendance of AA meetings where God is only used in a very broad context is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
 
Back
Top Bottom