• 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?

and this is relevent to your objection in what way?

it is relevant to your counter objection.

1) there are church going people who commit crimes.

2) so long as there are [any] church going people who commit crimes -regardless of even if it is just potential, this is preferential treatment.

or are you going to argue there are no church going people who commit misdemeanors, no DUI's, no domestic abuse cases. no unpaid parking tickets?
 
Last edited:
Got any evidence against it? You're making the claim he doesn't exist. So prove your point.

But back on topic, if they don't want to sit in church with a bunch of beautiful women nicely dressed in a gorgeous building......**** 'em. Lock 'em up. It's their choice.

I love it when people say this. Gives me a chance to post this:

2843905157_3abe047f44.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure I would a) not be committing a crime to warrant being in this position to begin with, but certainly b) not going to be in this area to even have the chance of going up in front of any judge in that area.

But keep trying to divert the topic. It is making our case for us that you have little argument for your position.
Ah...so it doesnt impact you in even the smallest bit. Well...that DOES make sense that it would matter to you.

Go to jail...take advantage of alternative sentencing. Thats a violation of your 1st amendment constitutional rights? Please...do show how it is either abridging your rights to free practice of religion or establishing a state religion.
 
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.

You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?
 
it is relevant to your counter objection.

1) there are church going people who commit crimes.

strawman, I never said there weren't

2) so long as there are [any] church going people who commit crimes -regardless of even if it is just potential, this is preferential treatment.

how so? in either case the offender has the choice to not go to jail

or are you going to argue there are no church going people who commit misdemeanors, no DUI's, no domestic abuse cases. no unpaid parking tickets?

I would argue that the chances of a person who goes to chruch every sunday doing so,, is so small as to be irrelevent to the discussion. I am a "church going person" and I don't go every sunday. I don't know anyone who attends every sunday.
 
I'd go to jail. I'd also have good grounds to fight that someone in a similar situation to me but with different religious beliefs was basically offered a less severe punishment because of their religious beliefs alone. That is discrimination. The law would then be struck down somewhere within our judicial system since it is religious discrimination and violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. It would cost them a lot more in legal battles than it would ever have cost to just offer a general community service program.

Don't feel like actually debating me on the issues I brought up then, huh?[/QUOTE]You read a two line sentence in a two paragraph article and pretend to know if everyone is offered the sentence...if there are or arent local churches of multiple denomination, or what the travel restrictions are? And Im supposed to debate that? Heres the thing...Im willing to bet they have a lot more sentencing options for diffent people other than go to jail or go meet with Pastor John at the Antioch baptist church on 12th street. You know little if anything about the judge, the community, their typical sentencing...but because religion is involved you pretend you 'know' how this is a violation of the constitution.

The way this is presented says that it is. Did you watch the video? The sheriff said that the punishment included church attendance every Sunday. If they don't want to make it sound like a violation of the Constitution, it is their responsibility to clarify what is being offered.

I do not attend church because my personal religious beliefs are personal and not necessary to be shared with any other person. This would be a violation of my freedom of religion since I am being forced to learn attend a religious service that has nothing to do with my beliefs as a punishment for a crime. It is a violation of the 14th because someone in a similar situation as me legally, but who has religious beliefs that have them attending church regularly, is being offered a less severe punishment just due to their religious beliefs already coinciding with an established religion, which is part of the punishment, while mine do not include community acceptance or sharing of my beliefs.
 
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?

he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant
 
I would bet they also use that as a component of sentencing. They probably also mandate the occasional substance abuse treatment program. Id be willing to bet they even court order anger management classes, smoking cessation classes, and parenting classes. But because religion is mentioned...THIS we must become fixated upon.

Please...should the unfortunate occasion ever occur whereby you are set before this judges court...choose option A. I hear the Kale and Pepper steak on friday is to die for.

none of which is unconstitutional. the establishment clause has long been practically interpreted as separation of church and state. this is very clear to me.
 
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?

i would choose wiccan services.
 
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?

It doesn't matter what he meant, just what he said. And I give less than a damn if he goes to Jewish services or muslim services or to the church of the Fonz, ayyyyyy, for all I care he can sit in jail. Oh wait don't they have religious services in jailhouses that one can choose to go to....damn that's unconstitutional.
 
I think that if they offer a variety of church types they should meet the Constitutional standard. If they only offer one type of church, that could be construed as promotion, but if many or all are offered then it is not promotion.
 
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant

And which churches are in that area? Who decides if the church is acceptable or not? What about people who do not fit into any established church? Who prevents a church from ridiculing a person for their personal religious beliefs or other choices?
 
strawman, I never said there weren't

not a straw man, your claim relies on the claim that "there were not many" My position is that if there is at least 1, or the potential for at least 1, then your counter objection is irrelevant. Therefore. if "1) there are church going people who commit crimes." your counterclaim is meaningless.


how so? in either case the offender has the choice to not go to jail

One person has a choice of carrying on with their normal routine, the other has to make sacrifices.

This is like saying.. "ok your punishment is to watch college football all day on saturday"

For me this is not a punishment, for my girlfriend this is certainly a punishment.

unequal treatment.

I would argue that the chances of a person who goes to chruch every sunday doing so,, is so small as to be irrelevent to the discussion. I am a "church going person" and I don't go every sunday. I don't know anyone who attends every sunday.

Ahh you do not know anyone who does not attend church every sunday so they do not exist huh? Once again any # greater than 1 in this category is too many. I suppose the members of the clergy are NOT in church every sunday? I suppose members of the cleergy have never committed a crime?

If there is 1 this is too many.
 
And which churches are in that area? Who decides if the church is acceptable or not? What about people who do not fit into any established church? Who prevents a church from ridiculing a person for their personal religious beliefs or other choices?

ridiculing people isn't against the law.
 
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant

Hard to say as the judge sounds delusional. I mean it is the same state where a judge refused to take the 10 C off the wall in a courthouse. "Church" in Alabama almost never means anything but "Christian place of worship". Alabama seems to have a problem separating "Christian" church and state. The judge did not say "place of worship", he said "church". So you tell me what he meant.
 
The way this is presented says that it is. Did you watch the video? The sheriff said that the punishment included church attendance every Sunday. If they don't want to make it sound like a violation of the Constitution, it is their responsibility to clarify what is being offered.

I do not attend church because my personal religious beliefs are personal and not necessary to be shared with any other person. This would be a violation of my freedom of religion since I am being forced to learn attend a religious service that has nothing to do with my beliefs as a punishment for a crime. It is a violation of the 14th because someone in a similar situation as me legally, but who has religious beliefs that have them attending church regularly, is being offered a less severe punishment just due to their religious beliefs already coinciding with an established religion, which is part of the punishment, while mine do not include community acceptance or sharing of my beliefs.
Im glad you are a legal expert. The fact that they offer it and live in a place with 'lectricity means they probably also have a city attorney who would tell them it was illegal if it actually was. But...preach on, internet constitutional expert.

You arent being FORCED to do ANYTHING. Should you be the poor unfortunate soul you are given a CHOICE (yes...a CLEAR violation of your 'rights'). And just for fun...try doing a quick google search on North Baldwin County, the area we are talking about, and the number and varying available denominations. Or did you do that already?
 
Risky Thicket said:
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?

I'd be fine with it. Hell, I'd want them to choose a Buddhist temple. Ever see a pissed-off Buddhist? They're the most level-headed people out there. You'd never see Richard Gere knock over an electronics store and carry out a TV.

Also, everyone knock off the "Establishment Clause" bullcrap. This is not a violation of separation.
 
Okay, how about making church-going folk who commit crimes be required to perform additional services for their church. Mentor program, meals on wheels, day care, maintenance/upkeep. Essentially community service for the cross.

how about community service for the community and leave the cross out of it?
 
Not that this is unconstitutional, but I don't agree with it at all. What the hell happened to locking people up? That sounds like a good idea, put all of their asses in jail.
 
I think that if they offer a variety of church types they should meet the Constitutional standard. If they only offer one type of church, that could be construed as promotion, but if many or all are offered then it is not promotion.

what if the guy is an atheist?
 
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant

The only churches in this community are christian.
 
none of which is unconstitutional. the establishment clause has long been practically interpreted as separation of church and state. this is very clear to me.
There is no establishment of religion occuring. There IS however a 'choice' being offered. I do strongly hope you stay true to your beliefs should you ever be in the unfortunate situation and choose jail.
 
And which churches are in that area?

why would a wiccan be living in an area without wiccan church? why would a muslim be living in an area without a mosque? if they really gave a damn about their religion, they would live in an area that had a church to cater to their need.

Who decides if the church is acceptable or not?

from what I read, all that is required is that the church agree to allow the criminal to attend

What about people who do not fit into any established church?


then they can pick any church they want, sit on the back row and sleep for an hour or so each sunday. nothing says they have to participate, only that they must attend. my father slept through church for 30 years

Who prevents a church from ridiculing a person for their personal religious beliefs or other choices?

why do you assume that a church would do so?
 
The only churches in this community are christian.
Dood...that is simply SO not true. Google it. You have pert near every denomination you can imagine, and we arent talking about just within the city limits...you are talking all of North Baldwin County.
 
Back
Top Bottom