• 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?

but then while attending a Christian church I'd be denied the Constitutional right to practice my own religion.

no one is saying you can't practice your own religion, you just have the option to attend an additional service in order to avoid jail
 
The Seperation of Church & State is being violated.

Yeah? Where is the seperation involved in what was said here and that I replied to?

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?
 
Lets suppose that the judge offered jail or volunteering at a local abortion clinic as possible sentences. I wonder if people would still consider it a "voluntary" choice that is perfectly reasonable. Its easy to justify abuse that happens to someone else until you fight yourself on the receiving end of the precedent you set.
 
Well I would sentence him to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, but once you step inside there, you instantly become homeless.

Yeah...that's how f'n stupid some of you sound with this "going to church is forcing religion on him" crap.
 
Well I would sentence him to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, but once you step inside there, you instantly become homeless.

Yeah...that's how f'n stupid some of you sound with this "going to church is forcing religion on him" crap.


hmmm..let's see now.

you can either serve time in jail for one year, or you can be FREE for a year to play, drink, party, have fun, work, be lazy.....but you have to go to church every Sunday.

how exactly does the 2nd option hold someone accountable for their crime?

what ever happened to wanting to be tough on crime?

what ever happened to having zero tolerance for crime?

does being tough on crime and having zero tolerance for crime, and "you do the crime you do the time" get thrown out the door when church is an option??????

wtf is with all the hypocricy.
 
Last edited:
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?

You seemingly have never seen my arguments on the matter, heheh. I hate those lists.
 
Lets suppose that the judge offered jail or volunteering at a local abortion clinic as possible sentences. I wonder if people would still consider it a "voluntary" choice that is perfectly reasonable. Its easy to justify abuse that happens to someone else until you fight yourself on the receiving end of the precedent you set.

volunteering involves participation, attending church does not.
 
Thunder said:
hmmm..let's see now.

you can either serve time in jail for one year, or you can be FREE for a year to play, drink, party, have fun, work, be lazy.....but you have to go to church every Sunday.

how exactly does the 2nd option hold someone accountable for their crime?

what ever happened to wanting to be tough on crime?

what ever happened to having zero tolerance for crime?

does being tough on crime and having zero tolerance for crime, and "you do the crime you do the time" get thrown out the door when church is an option??????

wtf is with all the hypocricy.

That's another story altogether. If all their "sentence" requires is an hour or two in church a week, it's definitely too weak of a punishment.

My argument goes with the "if you make him step inside a church, you're forcing religion upon him" bullcrap.
 
no one is saying you can't practice your own religion, you just have the option to attend an additional service in order to avoid jail

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

this judges ruling clearly violates the above Constitutional law.
 
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.

Why does it have to be church? Can't we expand on this, because I do agree that for many non-violent crimes jail shouldn't be part of it. But general community service seems, in my mind, to be a better option than church.

My question is what does this dude have to do? Just go to Church? That's a bit on the BS side. If he had to work their soup kitchens or outreach programs or something like that; ok. But if it's just that he has to go to Church on Sunday it doesn't sound like much of a punishment. Of course, if this were a drug related possession crime, I would probably say no punishment anyway.
 
Congress! Make law!

You're not even on the right branch of government. You are the Kansas City Royals of this thread.
 
hmmm..let's see now.

you can either serve time in jail for one year, or you can be FREE for a year to play, drink, party, have fun, work, be lazy.....but you have to go to church every Sunday.

how exactly does the 2nd option hold someone accountable for their crime?

what ever happened to wanting to be tough on crime?

what ever happened to having zero tolerance for crime?

does being tough on crime and having zero tolerance for crime, and "you do the crime you do the time" get thrown out the door when church is an option??????

wtf is with all the hypocricy.

what hypocrisy? no one is arguing that it is a good idea, only that it doesn't violate the criminals freedom of religion.

personally I think it is a stupid idea, the community would be better served by putting these criminals in orange jumpsuits and have them pick up trash from the side of the road every sunday
 
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.

Sure there is a down side. A person who already attends church regularly or who doesn't care about participating in any of the tenets/activities/help-programs of the church is not really being punished by this, nor are they actually paying for their crime. They committed a crime. Whether it was violent or not, they still should face some punishment, and it should not involve something that is part of some agenda to get people into church rather than to actually get people heading in the right direction.

Then there is anyone who could face ridicule and/or condemnation by a church for not wanting to be religious or involved in organized religion, but is trying to suck it up to make up for their mistake or even just save the community money. They should not face a relatively worse punishment just due to their faith or lack there of.
 
no one is saying you can't practice your own religion, you just have the option to attend an additional service in order to avoid jail

What is the point then in forcing someone to go to a Christian church as the only choice? Why a Christian church?
 
What is the point then in forcing someone to go to a Christian church as the only choice? Why a Christian church?

agreed. why can't he go to a Muslim mosque..or a Jewish temple/synagogue...or a Buddhist temple...or a Hindu temple?

why MUST it be a church on Sunday?

this ruling violates the 1st Amendment so very blatantly that only the dishonest and ignorant cannot see it.
 
You seemingly have never seen my arguments on the matter, heheh. I hate those lists.

I've not seen your lists and I never asked about why they were hated. ;D
 
No specifics are mentioned about what going to church would involve. Are we talking attending services or doing community service for the church?

Depending on the specifics, I would pick the church over jail time. I know more about Christianity than most Christians so I could easily fit in, plus the Divine is my best friend :)
 
..Depending on the specifics, I would pick the church over jail time. I know more about Christianity than most Christians so I could easily fit in, plus the Divine is my best friend :)

of course you would any criminal would.

freedom for 6 days a week while sitting in church for 2 hours on Sunday.......or going to jail for a year???

this ruling is a joke and will be tossed out in State court.
 
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.

The "it's a choice" part would be fine, IF there were other options that were equivalent. As it stands there is 1 choice to get the charges dropped (go to church) -this choice is severely imbalanced. I would be more amenable to this idea if there was a community service path, or a non religious "choice" that had equivalent results.

This still does not assuage my major issue with this, specifically that this creates a group of people who now basically get an annual free pass to commit a misdemeanor.
 
volunteering involves participation, attending church does not.

Making someone sit in a church and listen to a sermon is participation, even if its less active role than aborting fetuses. Nonetheless, I have an ever better counter. How about the judge orders you visit a particularly depraved gay leather club. You won't have to join in, but you do have to attend the weekly orgies. Still voluntary and fair?
 
Back
Top Bottom