• 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?

Thunder said:
wrong. YOU are suggesting your God exists. So prove it.
Click to expand...

here we go again. thunder squealing for proof any time anyone makes a claim and yet making all kinds of claims himself without offering up any proof whatsoever. I think there is a word for that....starts with an "H"...someone help me out here....
 
OscarB63 said:
here we go again. thunder squealing for proof any time anyone makes a claim and yet making all kinds of claims himself without offering up any proof whatsoever. I think there is a word for that....starts with an "H"...someone help me out here....
Click to expand...

Hippopotamus. No, wait.....something close to that I think.
 
A smart investor would open up a combination bar/church in that town.
 
so very right...he shouldnt be given the alternative...just sent straight to jail. And I hope if any of you that are so all fired concerned about this is ever in that situation, no judge ever gives you such a horrible option. Straight up jail time bitches. THATS a better option.

used to be that they were given a choice between jail or the military. That was evil too I reckon...
 
Probably should throw out substance abuse treat programs as an alternative to prison. Most effective programs involve the steps, and invariably, there is that pesky, higher power thing...

What exactly is it that people are upset about? People are being given a CHOICE. Choose a standard jail term and fine or a year of weekly attendance at a church of your choice...how terrible! His option saves the tax payers money. Maybe gives someone a chance to reconnect with a community that might be supportive (in multiple ways). This whole kneejerk response to anything religious is pretty sad.
 
And to the poster that said something stupid about how we would not support it if the choice was go to a mosque or jail.....well....I can't speak for everyone but I would fully support the choice. As long as its a free will choice, if they want to go to a mosque rather than jail it's fine with me. WTF do I care?
 
DashingAmerican said:
How is it unconstitutional? They are giving the choice. So nobody is forcing anything.
Click to expand...

I was getting ready to say the very same thing. Besides it won't hurt anyone to learn an little about how to treat your fellow man and it doen't have to be about religion, Jesus is all about being the best person you can be as you, do unto others etc.
 
I just don't see how this in much of a deterrent, especially for offenders who already go to church every week anyways.
 
liblady said:
of course it's unconstitutional. the mere fact that a judge would offer a choice involving religion is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Where is anything like this mentioned in the Constitution?
 
VanceMack said:
Probably should throw out substance abuse treat programs as an alternative to prison. Most effective programs involve the steps, and invariably, there is that pesky, higher power thing...

What exactly is it that people are upset about? People are being given a CHOICE. Choose a standard jail term and fine or a year of weekly attendance at a church of your choice...how terrible! His option saves the tax payers money. Maybe gives someone a chance to reconnect with a community that might be supportive (in multiple ways). This whole kneejerk response to anything religious is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

it's actually a response to a judge inserting his religious values into the courtroom. it's inappropriate.
 
"Inappropriate" is subjective. He is allowed to demonstrate his religious values as long as he does not order, condemn, or legislate. All he's doing is offering a choice. If the man is against it, he goes to jail. It's all good.

First Amendment is not applicable here because it has nothing to do with establishing religion.
 
liblady said:
it's actually a response to a judge inserting his religious values into the courtroom. it's inappropriate.
Click to expand...

Inappropriate perhaps, though it seems everyone interviewed is in agreement, but not unconstitutional.
 
liblady said:
it's actually a response to a judge inserting his religious values into the courtroom. it's inappropriate.
Click to expand...
Judges have long offered non-traditional sentencing including the choice of jail or military. So...BFD...you simply choose jail. Its pretty comical that you are twisted because he offered people a choice.
 
Grant said:
Where is anything like this mentioned in the Constitution?
Click to expand...
It isnt. Anti-religious bigots like to use the amendment that says freedom of religion and no establishment of a mandated state enforced religion to mean FROM religion. Tolerance is just a word.
 
VanceMack said:
It isnt. Anti-religious bigots like to use the amendment that says freedom of religion and no establishment of a mandated state enforced religion to mean FROM religion. Tolerance is just a word.
Click to expand...

that's ridiculous. i attend church and am far from anti-religious. i do not, however, appreciate a judge giving what is essentially a non-choice as a sentence that involves going to church. that's like saying to a man......do you want $500 dollars, or do you want to pay me $500?
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
please......
Click to expand...
Indeed...please continue. Which part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" indicates an individual could not or even should not be given such a choice during sentencing? Especially what with this being a state court and not a federal court, but even in the instance of a federal court, where is the abridgement of individual rights?
 
liblady said:
that's ridiculous. i attend church and am far from anti-religious. i do not, however, appreciate a judge giving what is essentially a non-choice as a sentence that involves going to church. that's like saying to a man......do you want $500 dollars, or do you want to pay me $500?
Click to expand...
You are joking...right? He IS giving a choice. Without the choice he can simply pay the fine and do the time. so your choice would be clear...No sir...Ima sit my ass in jail and pay my fine. Good deal.
 
VanceMack said:
It isnt. Anti-religious bigots like to use the amendment that says freedom of religion and no establishment of a mandated state enforced religion to mean FROM religion. Tolerance is just a word.
Click to expand...

You're right. It seems that a straightforward and positive program like this is certainly producing an odd reaction among Liberals.
 
nowhere does it say that the criminal (let's not forget that these are convicted criminals) must take part in the service or pay attention. simply that they can choose to attend a church. if they are an atheist or a muslim or a jew or whatever, they can go in and sit on the back row and sleep.

it's still a much better deal than going to jail.
 
This is so messed up.

As others have pointed out, this means that non-violent offenders who already attend church regularly, are basically getting off scottfree because they already perform the "punishment" every week anyway. It would be like offering me a choice between jail or keeping my house clean, which I do every day anyway.

On the flip side of this, some may end up being cruelly punished through ridicule for holding their personal religious beliefs that clash with the beliefs of most/all churches in the area. How many different denominations are in the area? How far out can a person go to practice their beliefs? Does it have to be an established church/religion, or can it be one that is more of a religious meeting group? And the Sheriff specifically said "Sunday" attendance, but what about those religions that meet on other days of the week? Can a person switch churches if they are feeling ridiculed? Who gets to decide if someone is being treated cruelly by the church or not for maintaining their personal beliefs instead of accepting the church's beliefs?

A generic community outreach program or the normal community service program is much better than this and doesn't discriminate against people for holding other religious views, nor does it allow some people to get off without actually working, even if they normally do community service.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
of course it's unconstitutional, but it's the south, right?
Click to expand...

Well, they do recognize at least part of the Constitution - the Second amendment - down in Dixie. It's the first and the fourteenth they have real problems with.

By the way, I'd like to be your friend but I have no idea how to respond.:2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom