• 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?

OscarB63 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It harms if a non-Christian is forced to sit in a "church building" and "worship" in ceremonies conducted by a "pastor". How many times do we have to tell you that? It IS what the judge said. It is discriminatory if a criminal happens to be of another religion. Doing something other than what the judge stated could result in contempt of court charges. Meeting in a house on Saturday with 3 other people to meditate is not "worshipping" in a "church building" on "Sunday".
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

why do you hate religion so?
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this wasn't appealed much. I challenge any court system who comes to this verdict and would probably accuse them of judicial activism.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It harms if a non-Christian is forced to sit in a "church building" and "worship" in ceremonies conducted by a "pastor". How many times do we have to tell you that? It IS what the judge said. It is discriminatory if a criminal happens to be of another religion. Doing something other than what the judge stated could result in contempt of court charges. Meeting in a house on Saturday with 3 other people to meditate is not "worshipping" in a "church building" on "Sunday".
Click to expand...

true, but no one is being forced to worship in any ceremonies. they are just forced (and even that is a stretch since they do have a choice) to be there. they can sleep, read a book, play their PSP, listen to a radio with earphones (a favorite of my dad BTW, when he was not sleeping) or any of a thousand other activities. OMG...a jew could even read from the Torah or a muslim could read from the Quran. :shock:

it really isn't that hard to understand.
 
OscarB63 said:
why do you hate religion so?
Click to expand...

I don't hate religion. I hate people trying to force their religious beliefs on others. Hell, I feel the same way about atheist who insist that people who believe in God are stupid/ignorant/insane/etc.

I have plenty of family members who are very religious who I love dearly and strongly admire their devotion to the religion. They also do not try to force their beliefs on others. They expect people to be good to each other, that is basically it. They may not do some things due to their religious beliefs against those things, and other things due to their beliefs about those things, but they don't expect anyone else to believe/do those things unless they want to. I have my own set of religious beliefs that I may share with people when they ask about them, especially if they want details, but I don't find it necessary to actually try to convert others to my beliefs about a higher power and/or an afterlife. That is just silly.
 
OscarB63 said:
true, but no one is being forced to worship in any ceremonies. they are just forced (and even that is a stretch since they do have a choice) to be there. they can sleep, read a book, play their PSP, listen to a radio with earphones (a favorite of my dad BTW, when he was not sleeping) or any of a thousand other activities. OMG...a jew could even read from the Torah or a muslim could read from the Quran. :shock:

it really isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

You honestly think this would be acceptable for the church for a person to do those things you mentioned and still be able to claim "I attended church this week"? I don't. I almost guarantee that there are rules for the person to actually have to follow the rules of whatever church they are in as long as they are in that church.
 
roguenuke said:
I don't hate religion. I hate people trying to force their religious beliefs on others. Hell, I feel the same way about atheist who insist that people who believe in God are stupid/ignorant/insane/etc.
Click to expand...

so again I must ask. how is it forcing any religious beliefs on a person by giving them the choice of sitting in a building? you would have a legitimate point IF, repeat IF, part of the sentence was that the criminal actually participate in the service. however, this is not the case.
 
roguenuke said:
You honestly think this would be acceptable for the church for a person to do those things you mentioned and still be able to claim "I attended church this week"? I don't. I almost guarantee that there are rules for the person to actually have to follow the rules of whatever church they are in as long as they are in that church.
Click to expand...

I honestly think that the church probably wouldn't really care, as long as you didn't disturb those around you or try to disrupt the service.
 
OscarB63 said:
so again I must ask. how is it forcing any religious beliefs on a person by giving them the choice of sitting in a building? you would have a legitimate point IF, repeat IF, part of the sentence was that the criminal actually participate in the service. however, this is not the case.
Click to expand...

How do you know what level of participation is expected of the person facing this punishment? I believe it is ignorant to believe that a judge would allow the person to do whatever they want in their mandatory church service.

Not only that, they would still be potentially subjected to ridicule and/or public humiliation just for their difference in beliefs. You may not have seen such things, but I have. Plus, we are talking about a difference in people who are voluntarily attending church, so they most likely agree with at least some of the beliefs of that church, and those who are being forced to attend, no matter what their beliefs are.
 
OscarB63 said:
I honestly think that the church probably wouldn't really care, as long as you didn't disturb those around you or try to disrupt the service.
Click to expand...

But you don't know this. And it wouldn't necessarily be up to the church, as a whole, but what agreement was made between the church and the judge regarding this situation.
 
OscarB63 said:
true, but no one is being forced to worship in any ceremonies. they are just forced (and even that is a stretch since they do have a choice) to be there. they can sleep, read a book, play their PSP, listen to a radio with earphones (a favorite of my dad BTW, when he was not sleeping) or any of a thousand other activities. OMG...a jew could even read from the Torah or a muslim could read from the Quran. :shock:

it really isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

What isn't difficult to understand is the fact that you are being obtuse. Forcing someone to attend religious observations and ceremonies not of their religion of choice is clearly against the law. What's worse is that the judge - by his words - excludes some religions.

If, as a Buddhist, I choose to meditate during Christian church services may I meditate? May I chant? Is sitting on the floor on a zafu permissible? Is walking meditation permissible? I think not. In fact we all know that before one single Christian church service would be completed I'd be labeled as disruptive. The police and the judge would be called.

I could probably attend in sweat pants or loose fitting clothing that is comfortable when meditating, but that would be distracting and possibly disrespectful in a Christian church.

Now I cannot imagine any Buddhist ever doing any of the above in a Christian church, but then while attending a Christian church I'd be denied the Constitutional right to practice my own religion.
 
Last edited:
I'm not reading all these pages and I'm late for service it would seem.

This won't hold up because of the options. If they were gave a list of many options, even if one included church it would be different. I'm one who would argue that church may very well do the person good but still the government can't say "go to church or go to jail".

It would be no different than jail or community service and your only option is Planned Parenthood.
 
Risky Thicket said:
What isn't difficult to understand is the fact that you are being obtuse. Forcing someone to attend religious observations and ceremonies not of their religion of choice is clearly against the law.
Click to expand...

Making someone register on a public hate-list for a crime he committed 30 years ago as a teen is clearly unconstitutional too, but don't see anyone standing up for the rights of the person in this case. Why the selective enforcement of the constitution?
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
Making someone register on a public hate-list for a crime he committed 30 years ago as a teen is clearly unconstitutional too, but don't see anyone standing up for the rights of the person in this case.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is not relevant.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Making someone register on a public hate-list for a crime he committed 30 years ago as a teen is clearly unconstitutional too, but don't see anyone standing up for the rights of the person in this case. Why the selective enforcement of the constitution?
Click to expand...

Off topic big time, since it is not selective enforcement of the Constitution that is being discussed but rather this particular case of violating the Constitution through law.

I'm sure there are a lot of people who consider sex-offender registries to be unconstitutional, but they have no obligation to express that in this thread.
 
The bottom line is the judge should have given the choice of community service or jail. Since he did not, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised this guy gets a nice settlement and gets his case dismissed. All on the tax layers dime thanks to a judge that wants to cram Jesus down people's throats.
 
TheNextEra said:
The bottom line is the judge should have given the choice of community service or jail. Since he did not, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised this guy gets a nice settlement and gets his case dismissed. All on the tax layers dime thanks to a judge that wants to cram Jesus down people's throats.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it. The option given as a proposed effort to save money on incarceration is likely to cost a lot of money in court battles over this very option being a violation of the Constitution. It is highly unlikely that many other US courts will agree that offering church service attendance as an alternative to jail time is okay. And the higher it goes before it is dropped, the more money it will cost.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Making someone register on a public hate-list for a crime he committed 30 years ago as a teen is clearly unconstitutional too, but don't see anyone standing up for the rights of the person in this case. Why the selective enforcement of the constitution?
Click to expand...

Just curious. What right is being violated?
 
Update:

The implementation of this program has been delayed to check to ensure this program is legally acceptable.

Bay Minette delays sending offenders to church - San Antonio Express-News

If the entire point was for the counseling/parenting/support classes, then mandatory attendance of those classes is what should have been offered as the alternative, not mandatory church attendance.
 
It's a choice, they can chose jail or church. I see nothing wrong with this, infact it would be a good thing.

Criminals chosing church would save the state money but not jailing them, it would also open up cells for inmates who committed more atrocious crimes. There is no downside to this, if a criminal doesn't want to do it they can chose jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom