• 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?

Well, if you're arguing that it's a soft, bullcrap excuse of punishment, I 100% agree with you. Where I throw up arms is where these people talk about "violating the Establishment clause" or "force people into their religion". That's bunk.

I, too, think all non-violent crimes should be met with heavy fines and community service, because the benefit is two-fold - not only do you gain reparations from offenders through cash and civil service, but you don't flip the bill for three hots and a cot. My support of this stems from the financial, because "forcing" someone to go to church is a hell of a lot cheaper than housing him for a year or two. I want something that is a) cheap, and b) proportional.

Cries of "belief force" fall on deaf ears, both morally and legally.
 
Well, if you're arguing that it's a soft, bullcrap excuse of punishment, I 100% agree with you. Where I throw up arms is where these people talk about "violating the Establishment clause" or "force people into their religion". That's bunk....

explain how this does not violate the Establishment Clause.
 
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!

And other alternatives ramming are the cleaning of public parks down their throats, ramming working at recycling depots down their throats, etc. The idea of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" might be offensive to some but perhaps it might actually allow these young people the chance to learn something that they might not otherwise learn cleaning public highways.

Many criminals have said they have found religion in prison. Perhaps this will get a couple of them on the right path sooner.
 
: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.

Define "religion hater".
 
Thunder said:
explain how this does not violate the Establishment Clause.

I've already enlightened you earlier. This is a judicial ruling. It's not "establishing" anything, it's not administered by Congress, and it sure as hell is not law.

You make it sound like forcing community service in a liquor store is violating a couple amendments too.
 
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.

****ing a corspe is a bad idea, the fact that it is illegal is irrelevant. same concept applies here.
 
Define "religion hater".

anyone in this thread who cares more about a criminal's "freedom of religion" than they do about the fact that criminals will basically be going unpunished
 
I essentially ****ed a corpse for the better part of 2 years. God, she was a horrible lay.

Oops, I meandered. I mean ARRRGH ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
 
Well, if you're arguing that it's a soft, bullcrap excuse of punishment, I 100% agree with you. Where I throw up arms is where these people talk about "violating the Establishment clause" or "force people into their religion". That's bunk.

I, too, think all non-violent crimes should be met with heavy fines and community service, because the benefit is two-fold - not only do you gain reparations from offenders through cash and civil service, but you don't flip the bill for three hots and a cot. My support of this stems from the financial, because "forcing" someone to go to church is a hell of a lot cheaper than housing him for a year or two. I want something that is a) cheap, and b) proportional.

Cries of "belief force" fall on deaf ears, both morally and legally.

I'm still not convinced that legally it's ok. While I understand that ultimately only I can decide if I want to believe something, and thus going to church isn't a "force" of beliefs; it still doesn't seem like proper government force to demand attendance. I mean, what if they made a law that said you have to go to Church, hell it doesn't even have to be denominational, any Church except the Church of Scientology. Because I hate that one. You have to go to A church at least once a week or pay a fine. There's choice, right? And while they may be forcing one to go to a church, they're not forcing them to believe; right? So there's no belief force. Is it ok? I'd still say no. This one is a bit more clear than the court case since it would actually be congress making a law. But I think the sentiment is similar. It's at best very iffy. I'd rather we not allow Church as Punishment, just avoid that area all together, and use fines and general community service. We get more use out of community service than some jerk sitting in Church once a week.
 
I wonder how different this thread would be if it were Mosques and not Churches...

To team up government and a single religion, or even any religion, in this respect, is favoring one religious position over another. That is a violation of the establishment clause. There is no way around that. Government and religion must be separate in this country. That's the rule.

Second, the notion about "choice." One cannot be pushed into a choice to give up constitutional rights. If police say "the moment you step out your door, you will be searched, without a warrant", then they are violating your rights. Even though you have a choice to not go outside. They don't have the right to push that situation on you. They cannot create consequences for going outside. The same is true here. The government cannot create theological consequences for anything. It is not a right that it has.
 
it may be irrelevant to you, but to many people in America the United State Constitution has serious weight.

my give up. obviously this incredibly simple concept is beyond your comprehension
 
anyone in this thread who cares more about a criminal's "freedom of religion" than they do about the fact that criminals will basically be going unpunished

allowing someone to be free of jail time AND probationary regulations, as long as they go to Church every Sunday once a week, means they will have gotten away with their crime Scot-free.
 
allowing someone to be free of jail time AND probationary regulations, as long as they go to Church every Sunday once a week, means they will have gotten away with their crime Scot-free.

which is why this is a bad idea.
 
I am not the one who is arguing that the Constitution of the United States is basically worthless.

strawman, neither am I. only that it is irrelevant as to why this is a bad idea
 
Ikari said:
I'm still not convinced that legally it's ok. While I understand that ultimately only I can decide if I want to believe something, and thus going to church isn't a "force" of beliefs; it still doesn't seem like proper government force to demand attendance. I mean, what if they made a law that said you have to go to Church, hell it doesn't even have to be denominational, any Church except the Church of Scientology. Because I hate that one. You have to go to A church at least once a week or pay a fine. There's choice, right? And while they may be forcing one to go to a church, they're not forcing them to believe; right? So there's no belief force. Is it ok? I'd still say no. This one is a bit more clear than the court case since it would actually be congress making a law. But I think the sentiment is similar. It's at best very iffy. I'd rather we not allow Church as Punishment, just avoid that area all together, and use fines and general community service. We get more use out of community service than some jerk sitting in Church once a week.

I see where you're coming from, but most definitely would be a violation of EC, especially since you could claim atheism and be excused.

I'd rather we use general community service and fines as well, but if a judge wants to make this innocuous attempt, I say go for it. I consider it more as an experiment than anything. I see all these hardened criminals claim to turn their lives around because "they found God". I'd support it just as a guise of scientific research to satiate my curiosities.

It would be fun to know the success rate...****s and giggles and all.
 
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.

How is it a "gray area"?

And there are "secular options", though I can only guess what that means. That would be doing regular community service projects where religion is highly unlikely to be mentioned.. They are not "demanding religious attendance". It is an option.
 
anyone in this thread who cares more about a criminal's "freedom of religion" than they do about the fact that criminals will basically be going unpunished
What do Constitutional rights have to do with criminals in jail? Criminals in jail are denied many Constitutional rights.
 
most people in this country believe that violating the Constitution of the United States, is a bad idea.

still don't get it do you?


this thing is a bad idea, doesn't matter that it is also unconstitutional. it is a bad idea at the core.
 
still don't get it do you?

this thing is a bad idea, doesn't matter that it is also unconstitutional. it is a bad idea at the core.

again, the fact that it violates our Constitution is a BIG DEAL for me. obviously not for you.
 
most people in this country believe that violating the Constitution of the United States, is a bad idea.
There are many constitutional rights stripped away from those in jail. Why is the religion clause any different?
 
Back
Top Bottom