• 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?

No, I've curtailed it to be equivalent to the church option. You seemingly avoid that. They can attend church and then answer questions about the service for a year. Then we could do, the attend PP and answer questions about the service for a year. Thus they are equivalent. Now then, how many people supporting the Jail or Church option would take the Jail or PP option?

really? I have answered that at least 3 times. IF that were to be the case, all you had to do was go and sit at PP and answer questions about what happened, I doubt you'd find many, even hard core religious people, who would rather go to jail than sit at PP.


but that was not your original arguement. you started off talking about mopping floors, etc at PP. you only ;) "moved the goalpost" when I challenged you to tell me what equivalent benefit the church was getting from having the person sitting there.

FWIW, I would still like an answer to that question or an admission that the answer is, in fact, "the church gets no benefit" ;)
 
Last edited:
Even if it's not your religion, it's avoiding punishment and staying out of jail. .

so, from the criminal's perspective, where is the problem?

it's funny that most of the people who are squealing about how unconstitutional this is and how it really isn't a choice are the people least likely to ever find themselves in that position. a criminal isn't really going to give two ****s if it's against his religion or not, he's just going to see a big fat "get out of jail free" card.
 
Last edited:
So going back to your abortion clinic analogy, this is like sitting in on a couple hours of abortions and then answering questions afterwords. Obviously those unopposed to abortion aren't going to have a problem with this, just like theists aren't generally going to have a problem with someone sitting through a service.

This is like complaining when someone is ordered to attend AA because of AA's references to "a higher power".

This serves a valid secular purpose, and if the convict still doesn't like it, they can choose jail.

I wonder why atheists aren't coming out of the woodwork to offer equivalent Richard Dawkins classes. Obviously there's a demand here. Fill that demand, instead of just sitting on your ass complaining about everyone else. No one is stopping you from getting your piece of the pie.

First of all, I haven't made any such analogy. I haven't mentioned abortion clinics at all.

Second, it is the town's responsibility to ensure punishments are not unconstitutional. When someone points out that the options are not Constitutional, it is then their responsibility to change that, not everyone else's. The town government is the one that has to ensure that either equivalent alternatives are available or they do not implement this program as it currently stands.

Plus, AA meetings, without a secular alternative that has no mention of a higher power, have been found to be unconstitutional in several cases, that I am pretty sure I already posted earlier in this thread.
 
First of all, I haven't made any such analogy. I haven't mentioned abortion clinics at all.

Second, it is the town's responsibility to ensure punishments are not unconstitutional. When someone points out that the options are not Constitutional, it is then their responsibility to change that, not everyone else's. The town government is the one that has to ensure that either equivalent alternatives are available or they do not implement this program as it currently stands.

Plus, AA meetings, without a secular alternative that has no mention of a higher power, have been found to be unconstitutional in several cases, that I am pretty sure I already posted earlier in this thread.

Abortion clinics were in this line of community discussion, please try to keep up; non of us live in that city, so therefore by the Left's own standard this is non of our business; the AA is still hear, and I take great joy in the fact that that pisses you off.

You are free to choose how you failed.
 
Go to church have the charges dismissed.

Go to jail have a record.

This secular "choice" does not even have a trace of equivalency

Ok, so the choice for you is obvious. Does that mean it is obvious to everyone? Does that mean your choice is preferable to everyone? So many people seem to think that easy choices are not choices and that simply isn't true.
 
so, from the criminal's perspective, where is the problem?

it's funny that most of the people who are squealing about how unconstitutional this is and how it really isn't a choice are the people least likely to ever find themselves in that position. a criminal isn't really going to give two ****s if it's against his religion or not, he's just going to see a big fat "get out of jail free" card.
I don't think that's the point. I have no doubt that many prisoners would jump all over such an opportunity, which is part of the danger.

One of the biggest complaints with programs like Alcoholics Annonymous, for example, is that it effectively preys on weak-minded people and brainwashes them into accepting a religion. A similar problem might arise under this law. The government should not be drafting legislation that basically funnels people to the Church for them to convert.

Even if there is no effort on the part of the Church to evangelize people, it is still a violation of the separation of Church and state to give a religious institution favoritism over non-religious institutions that could serve the same objectives.

I think the overall idea is good. Let criminals be productive and help society rather than just sit and rot in prison. But the implementation is flawed.
 
Last edited:
oh, so his religious option is to be free without probation, but sit in church every Sunday for a year...and his secular option is to sit in JAIL for a year.

do you consider these two options to be equal?

it is truly ignorant and/or blatantly dishonest to argue that the two options are equal.

No one ever did. You wanted a secular option and there it is. No one said you had to like it.
 
Abortion clinics were in this line of community discussion, please try to keep up; non of us live in that city, so therefore by the Left's own standard this is non of our business; the AA is still hear, and I take great joy in the fact that that pisses you off.

You are free to choose how you failed.

This is your problem, you group everyone together who doesn't agree with you and pretend they are making the same arguments. That would be wrong. I am not making an argument involving abortion clinics at all, nor have I in this thread.

And I have no problem with AA being available. It is a wonderful program that has helped plenty of people, including a friend of mine. Mandated AA, with no option for those who have no interest in relying on a higher power to help them with their alcoholism is the problem. Most places are remedying that with no issue. At least one such program is called SOS.

I don't have an issue whatsoever with religious options being available as part of punishments, as long as there are equivalent secular options available as well. That is the problem with the "Operation ROC" that is being discussed. There is no equivalent secular option available that compares to the church option.
 
No one ever did. You wanted a secular option and there it is. No one said you had to like it.

Don't do the crime if you can't to the time...in church, or jail...whichever.

We are talking about criminals here, so I'm automatically not going to be sympathetic by default. They were in the wrong in the first place, so claims of victimization over something so trivial is invalid.
 
This is your problem...

I've not received a community service sentence nor do I object to the available options to serve it, so I have no problem.

I don't have an issue whatsoever with religious options being available as part of punishments, as long as there are equivalent secular options available as well. That is the problem with the "Operation ROC" that is being discussed. There is no equivalent secular option available that compares to the church option.

OK, and how is that the church's fault? Why aren't secularists coming out with equivalent programs?

If you answered "because secularists don't give a **** about the community and want everyone else to do everything for them", you would be correct.
 
One of the biggest complaints with programs like Alcoholics Annonymous, for example, is that it effectively preys on weak-minded people and brainwashes them into accepting a religion. A similar problem might arise under this law.

so it's better to let them remain alcoholics and drug addicts and die early from an overdose or liver failure than it is to "brainwash them into accepting a religion"? gee, let's just save them the years of slow decline and put a bullet in their head now :shrug:

I think the overall idea is good. Let criminals be productive and help society rather than just sit and rot in prison. But the implementation is flawed.

I think this particular idea sucks. the criminals are not being productive, and the only lesson they are learning is that there are no real consequences for breaking the law.
 
Don't do the crime if you can't to the time...in church, or jail...whichever....

that's cute, by sentencing a convict to serve time by going to Church once a week or going to jail for a year, violating the 1st Amendment.

its funny how Conservatives love to wave the Constitution in Liberals' faces....up until the point when the Constitution runs counter to their own agenda & beliefs.
 
I've not received a community service sentence nor do I object to the available options to serve it, so I have no problem.

Dodge much? Answer has nothing to do with the full sentence in question.

OK, and how is that the church's fault? Why aren't secularists coming out with equivalent programs?

If you answered "because secularists don't give a **** about the community and want everyone else to do everything for them", you would be correct.

Who's saying it has anything to do with the church or the church should hold any responsibility for it? Nothing changes for the churches if this program is not allowed to be enacted. There is no penalty being laid on any of the churches if the program is changed to include secular options or if it is dropped altogether. And if any church is gaining any sort of financial advantage from the state from the enactment of this program and would lose that if it got put down, well then that is just one more point against the program to show that it is unconstitutional.

No one in fact faces any actual penalty from not enacting this program. Unless they cannot come up with an alternative program that is acceptable, the city will still be responsible for the funding to house the criminals that may have had this option, but they can always come up with a secular program of alternative sentencing, such as mandatory community service, that would take care of that.
 
Seems to me this would be unconstitutional for he same reason school prayer in public schools is unconstitutional -- it's a step towards the government establishing religion.
 
so you admit that the two options are totally unequal?

thank you for your honesty.

Ok...I didn't know anyone ever made that claim. Nor is it important. Why are you focusing on this? What is it that you think that proves?

Like it was said above, they're criminals. They shouldn't even get a choice, they should be told what to do. But, I think it is good for them to go through something that is more rehabilitative than punitive. We all know that jails have not had a great track record of rehabilitation so maybe churches of any type can be the trick.
 
Seems to me this would be unconstitutional for he same reason school prayer in public schools is unconstitutional -- it's a step towards the government establishing religion.

ah...the old slippery slope arguement. In and of itself, it is not establishing religion...it's just a "step" towards the process.


just for kicks...exactly which religion is it they are establishing, since the convict gets to choose the church?
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

What of a parallel governing system like Sharia Law ever happening in America?

Do you or do you not think that would be constituional to respect a parallel, religious form of government such as Sharia Law?

If we don't give felons the option of going to curch then assuredly anything even remotely resembling Sharia Law will never, ever, be allowed in America?
 
ah...the old slippery slope arguement. just for kicks...exactly which religion is it they are establishing, since the convict gets to choose the church?

Any religion that meets in a church or requires meetings to discuss the religion at all.
 
Any religion that meets in a church or requires meetings to discuss the religion at all.

sorry, but contrary to popular belief, that was not the intent behind the anti-establishment clause. but, of course, you already knew that ;)
 
really? I have answered that at least 3 times. IF that were to be the case, all you had to do was go and sit at PP and answer questions about what happened, I doubt you'd find many, even hard core religious people, who would rather go to jail than sit at PP.


but that was not your original arguement. you started off talking about mopping floors, etc at PP. you only ;) "moved the goalpost" when I challenged you to tell me what equivalent benefit the church was getting from having the person sitting there.

FWIW, I would still like an answer to that question or an admission that the answer is, in fact, "the church gets no benefit" ;)

But that's what I was doing. Your contention was that they weren't equal, so I refined the hypothetical until they were equal. You say yourself that you wouldn't have a problem beyond the base problem you would have with the Church option. Fair enough, but the hypothetical is aimed at more than just you. Some were saying essentially "tough beans, if atheists don't want to be sent to church then don't break the law". I was just wondering what those folk who said that would think of if instead of church it was say Planned Parenthood.
 
But that's what I was doing. Your contention was that they weren't equal, so I refined the hypothetical until they were equal. You say yourself that you wouldn't have a problem beyond the base problem you would have with the Church option. Fair enough, but the hypothetical is aimed at more than just you. Some were saying essentially "tough beans, if atheists don't want to be sent to church then don't break the law". I was just wondering what those folk who said that would think of if instead of church it was say Planned Parenthood.

and as I said, as long as all they had to do was sit and observe...don't think it would be a big deal.
 
so, from the criminal's perspective, where is the problem?

There most likely isn't one from their perspective. But the argument is whether or not this is proper form of punishment handed down by the courts to mandate religious service. Which I don't think it is. First off, it's kind of a sticky area as to whether or not government can even do it in the first place. Secondly, it's hardly punishment. While I do believe that many non-violent crimes shouldn't get jail time, I'm not advocating the removal of all punishment (not in general, there are certainly laws I would like to see not law). In that case, it seems to me that the better choice is just some fines and a bunch of community service as we actually get some amount of benefit out of community service.
 
sorry, but contrary to popular belief, that was not the intent behind the anti-establishment clause. but, of course, you already knew that ;)

But that is how it is ruled on today and how most people see it.
 
so it's better to let them remain alcoholics and drug addicts and die early from an overdose or liver failure than it is to "brainwash them into accepting a religion"?
Yes, because that's obviously a fair reading of my position from what I wrote. [/sarcasm]

You are ignoring the fact that there are other, non-religious solutions to accomplish the same goal. You are also trying to turn a debate about legislation into some debate about the choices of individuals which assumes that the legislation is the only option. The choice isn't between AA and addiction forever, nor is it a choice between religious community service and prison. The choice here is between crafting a statute that favors religious institutions versus a statute that is secular. I don't see any logical or constitutional reason to favor the former.



I think this particular idea sucks. the criminals are not being productive, and the only lesson they are learning is that there are no real consequences for breaking the law.
I'd rather them be in jail and doing community service.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom