• 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?

TheNextEra said:
And church is still not a better option than community service, which will serve the entire community instead of having someone listening to a sermon :shrug:
Click to expand...

too bad that is not the issue.
 
OscarB63 said:
too bad that is not the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes we know, the issue is about an activist judge wanting to cram Jesus down people's throats and letting criminals get away with too light a sentence.

But hey, you are all about cramming religion down people's throats. So enjoy!
 
roguenuke said:
Not that this is much of a surprise to me. I figured it wasn't going to be that easy for people to just show up and blow it off. This definitely makes it more like an indoctrination program, since a person is going to be expected to learn the religion for a year, whether they agree with it or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain that they need agree with the teachings or not. The idea seems to be that other ideas should be introduced into the young criminals mind, the sort of teachings and beliefs which underpin the foundations of the United States and other democracies. It would be interesting to see a study on whether young people attending Church regularly committed more crimes than those who didn't
Even offering other alternatives such as community service still does not change the issue that those who already attend church regularly are going to be getting away with a crime as if it didn't happen, since such a "punishment" really wouldn't change their lives at all except maybe adding a test into it every so often, which they most likely have the answers for anyway.
Click to expand...

Perhaps those attending Church on a regular basis would have to find alternative punishment. This is not a major stumbling block.

And deciding to go through with this program will cost them money in court battles because I guarantee that someone, most likely the ACLU, will challenge this program.
Click to expand...

The ACLU is already involved and their argument is "Even if the city offers other sentencing alternatives that are comparable to Operation ROC, which is far from clear, the First Amendment still prohibits the government from becoming entangled in core religious exercise, which includes attending church,"

When they cannot find a specific mention in the Constitution they tend to just make it up, as they did here.
Click to expand...
 
roguenuke said:
Not that this is much of a surprise to me. I figured it wasn't going to be that easy for people to just show up and blow it off. This definitely makes it more like an indoctrination program, since a person is going to be expected to learn the religion for a year, whether they agree with it or not.

Even offering other alternatives such as community service still does not change the issue that those who already attend church regularly are going to be getting away with a crime as if it didn't happen, since such a "punishment" really wouldn't change their lives at all except maybe adding a test into it every so often, which they most likely have the answers for anyway.

And deciding to go through with this program will cost them money in court battles because I guarantee that someone, most likely the ACLU, will challenge this program.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks. Now the next time U of M's alumni association calls/writes me and panders for donations, I'll tell them no because they tried to indoctrinate me by forcing me to take tests.
 
OscarB63 said:
strawman? when have I said they shouldn't. I'm just saying that FOR THE CRIMINAL, it is a better option to go to church than to go to jail and get butt****ed by big bubba.

I'd much rather have someone violate my freedom of religion than to violate my rectum
Click to expand...

So would most people, still doesn't make it right or Constitutional.

It is wrong for two major reasons. One, there is absolutely no way that this town got enough religious places/churches involved to cover every possible religious beliefs a person might hold, which means someone would have to be compromising their religious ideals in order to get the "lesser" punishment. And two (the bigger issue in my opinion), some people are basically going to get off almost scott-free for their crime just because they already are a regular member of one of the churches involved in this program.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes we know, the issue is about an activist judge wanting to cram Jesus down people's throats and letting criminals get away with too light a sentence.

But hey, you are all about cramming religion down people's throats. So enjoy!
Click to expand...

:2bigcry: strawman much? I just don't see what the big deal is. all you religion haters are squealing about "freedom of religion" and how unconstitutional it is. you really don't give ****all about the fact that the concept is BS because it lets criminals off easy. you are just pissing yourselves with glee over a chance to bash religion.
 
roguenuke said:
So would most people, still doesn't make it right or Constitutional.

It is wrong for two major reasons. One, there is absolutely no way that this town got enough religious places/churches involved to cover every possible religious beliefs a person might hold, which means someone would have to be compromising their religious ideals in order to get the "lesser" punishment. And two (the bigger issue in my opinion), some people are basically going to get off almost scott-free for their crime just because they already are a regular member of one of the churches involved in this program.
Click to expand...


wrongo. it is wrong for ONE major reason. religious or not, it lets criminals off without any significant punishment. everything else is just smoke and mirrors
 
Gipper said:
Awesome, thanks. Now the next time U of M's alumni association calls/writes me and panders for donations, I'll tell them no because they tried to indoctrinate me by forcing me to take tests.
Click to expand...

Were you required to attend U of M because of some punishment? Was the alternative to attending U of M time in jail? Did U of M's program/teaching come into conflict with your beliefs but you were unable to express that openly for fear of being told that you were being difficult/uncooperative and would have to take the alternative of jail?
 
OscarB63 said:
wrongo. it is wrong for ONE major reason. religious or not, it lets criminals off without any significant punishment. everything else is just smoke and mirrors
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, it is wrong because of the first reason. This has been ruled on several times in the past in various cases. It is obvious to pretty much anyone who isn't blinded by the belief that required religion is always a good thing.
 
OscarB63 said:
:2bigcry: strawman much? I just don't see what the big deal is. all you religion haters are squealing about "freedom of religion" and how unconstitutional it is. you really don't give ****all about the fact that the concept is BS because it lets criminals off easy. you are just pissing yourselves with glee over a chance to bash religion.
Click to expand...

So you think listening to a sermon for 4 hours a week and then answering some questions isn't too light on crime?

What a message you want to send," commit a crime, go to church.". Are you actually reading what you are typing?
 
roguenuke said:
Were you required to attend U of M because of some punishment?
Click to expand...

No, that's Ohio State. Also, college degrees were necessary to afford my lifestyle.

Was the alternative to attending U of M time in jail?
Click to expand...

No. Homelessness, maybe a minimum-wage nothing existence.

Did U of M's program/teaching come into conflict with your beliefs but you were unable to express that openly for fear of being told that you were being difficult/uncooperative and would have to take the alternative of jail?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't believe in tests. If I objected, I'd fail and be kicked out. The alternative would be poverty jail with loans I couldn't pay back.

See? I had choices too. Just because mine were easy don't make them any less of a choice.

Hit me back when he's sentenced to church without any alternative.
 
roguenuke said:
Constitutionally, it is wrong because of the first reason. This has been ruled on several times in the past in various cases. It is obvious to pretty much anyone who isn't blinded by the belief that required religion is always a good thing.
Click to expand...

strawman? but hey, any chance to bash at religion eh? ;)
 
TheNextEra said:
So you think listening to a sermon for 4 hours a week and then answering some questions isn't too light on crime?

What a message you want to send," commit a crime, go to church.". Are you actually reading what you are typing?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? please learn english. I never said it was a good idea. and where the hell have you been going to church where the sermons last for 4 freaking hours?
 
OscarB63 said:
strawman? but hey, any chance to bash at religion eh? ;)
Click to expand...

there is no need to bash religion to see that this ruling grossly violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. this is clear to all but the willfully blind or ignorant.
 
Violating the Establishment Clause? Clearly you are no lawyer.

If they couldn't get rid of the Ten Commandments memorial at the court house lawn, you sure as hell don't have a legal leg to stand on here.
 
OscarB63 said:
strawman? but hey, any chance to bash at religion eh? ;)
Click to expand...

No. I bash people who try to cram religion down other people's throats. I think most religion is great, since it does inspire a lot of people to do good things and not commit crimes.

You can believe whatever the hell you want, I do. But I'm not going to pretend that making people get religious is actually going to help them or their community. People don't need religion to help them be better people. It can help in some cases, but then again, so can education or community service.
 
Thunder said:
there is no need to bash religion to see that this ruling grossly violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. this is clear to all but the willfully blind or ignorant.
Click to expand...

and totally irrelevant to the reason why this is a bad idea
 
OscarB63 said:
still a better option than going to jail and answering questions about how many times a day you get raped in the ass or have to toss a salad. :shrug:
Click to expand...
99.9% of prison rapes take place in the minds of the non-incarcerated.
 
Gipper said:
Would you all shut the hell up about that damned word "force"? There is nothing in this pertaining to force.

He is given a choice between jail and church. It is not force.
Click to expand...

Of course there is force. The government is forcing him to go to either church or jail. Chances are, free from any force, the dude would do neither.

Gipper said:
He has the chance to sit through a man talking. It is not forcing him to practice, nor to follow that religion.

As I said before, walking into a church does not make you religious. If I walk into a food shelter, does that make me homeless?

Your argument is ludicrous. Come up with something better and more accurate, meaning not falsely implying "force".
Click to expand...

How could you say there is no force? This is in fact government force. As for going to Church, I do not believe it to be a proper punishment handed out by government. Particularly if there are no secular and other religious choices. Should a Muslim be forced to go to a Christian church? And yes, it is force. The government is clearly applying force, there is a time rate of change in momentum. That's why this is a pretty sticky situation and one most likely best staid away from. I could have seen him doing community service through the Church, but not just attending. That's not proper. The government has no right or business telling us that we need to go to church. Even if we decide not to listen and still not to practice.

It's best not to engage in Church as Punishment. It just makes too many conflicts and issues.
 
Mickey Shane said:
99.9% of prison rapes take place in the minds of the non-incarcerated.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is probably true. They're too busy watching HBO and eating better than I do.
 
Ikari said:
How could you say there is no force? This is in fact government force. As for going to Church, I do not believe it to be a proper punishment handed out by government. Particularly if there are no secular and other religious choices. Should a Muslim be forced to go to a Christian church? And yes, it is force. The government is clearly applying force, there is a time rate of change in momentum. That's why this is a pretty sticky situation and one most likely best staid away from. I could have seen him doing community service through the Church, but not just attending. That's not proper. The government has no right or business telling us that we need to go to church. Even if we decide not to listen and still not to practice.

It's best not to engage in Church as Punishment. It just makes too many conflicts and issues.
Click to expand...

By that definition, anything is force. You're starting to sound like those "wage slavery" commies because they want an option beyond work or starve.

Also, if you want to talk about force, making them go to jail is force - and it's more definitive because there is not a choice. Just like I don't want to go the commie route, I don't want to go the anarcho-capitalist route and say they shouldn't go to jail because that "force".
 
Gipper said:
By that definition, anything is force. You're starting to sound like those "wage slavery" commies because they want an option beyond work or starve.

Also, if you want to talk about force, making them go to jail is force - and it's more definitive because there is not a choice. Just like I don't want to go the commie route, I don't want to go the anarcho-capitalist route and say they shouldn't go to jail because that "force".
Click to expand...

Anything that makes one deviate from their natural course is of course a force. F=dp/dt.

I'm not saying that all force is not warranted or that we must be completely non-coercive. I think the goal in general should be to minimize coercion; but certainly one proper place for government force is sentencing of those found guilty in a court of law. I'm not saying that the government can't apply force, I'm just saying let's call a duck a duck. That's the best way to be able to identify and discuss government action.

To be honest, jail or church I'm not the most upset with. Actually, for most non-violent crimes like this one I would say that jail is likely not needed and we can do everything through community service. Which is also a force. But I think we should be more willing to use community service for crimes that don't necessitate jail instead of throwing people into jail. The whole "go to Church" thing, it's too gray an area I think. Because there would need to be a secular option, there would need to be other religious options. Instead, the judge could have said "X amount of community service". But I do not think it proper use of government force, even in sentencing of criminals, to demand religious attendance.
 
OscarB63 said:
and totally irrelevant to the reason why this is a bad idea
Click to expand...

oh really? a judge's ruling being unConstitutional does not count as a reason why a ruling should be considered bad? I had no idea you had such little regard for our Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom