• 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?

roguenuke said:
It certainly could be if you are not providing a very similar option that would encompass every possible set of general beliefs out there, including a total lack of beliefs.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps you can explain where Congress is establishing a religion in Kentucky?
 
OscarB63 said:
I still think, regardless of the criminal's religious status, it is a damn good deal for any criminal and a very bad freaking idea for that reason.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a good idea for them, it's essentially escaping punishment. I may say that if possible we should keep non-violent offenders out of jail because we don't need to waste money putting them there. But I would rather say that instead we use fines and community service so that they still have to do something. And we get benefit out of community service.
 
OscarB63 said:
because it is such a bad idea in general, the fact that it may or may not be unconstitutional is irrelevent. Instead of arguing over the constitutionality, argue over the stupidity.
Click to expand...

Why not test it out for a couple of years and then check whether its been successful or not?
 
Grant said:
Why not test it out for a couple of years and then check whether its been successful or not?
Click to expand...

I tried that with my ex-girlfriend and she dumped me...
 
roguenuke said:
I can only find any information on this from around 2005 and it states that he made this offer to about 50 people with alcohol/drug related problems. No information at all on the recidivism rate.

From the looks of it, the two are similar.

Judge's Offer: Church Or Jail - CBS News
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for that.

Without any follow-up to those 50 youths involved it really leaves everything unclear. It might have been a good story to interview these youths to see how they felt about the while thing.
 
Thunder said:
A Christian Church is a religious establishment. I see the game you are trying to play, and it is juvenile & ignorant.
Click to expand...

That's correct. The Christian Church has already been established so there is no establishment going on in Kentucky.

Also you quoted the Constitution accurately when you said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

As we can easily see, Congress is not establishing any religion in Kentucky or anywhere else. Is that correct or not?

As to "playing games" I am quoting the Constitution and, I believe, its intent.

The problem lies with your own gullibility in believing what groups like the ACLU tell you and then swallowing it whole.. That is the real game being played. And you have been so seriously suckered into that game that you will quote the Constitution without giving the words within any thought at all. You will just recite and repeat what you've been so frequently told. You have so bought the idea that you don't even have to think about the meaning of the words anymore.
 
Grant said:
...The problem lies with your own gullibility in believing what groups like the ACLU tell you and then swallowing it whole.. That is the real game being played. And you have been so seriously suckered into that game that you will quote the Constitution without giving the words within any thought at all. You will just recite and repeat what you've been so frequently told. You have so bought the idea that you don't even have to think about the meaning of the words anymore.
Click to expand...

This is a wonderful....yet pathetic strawmen argument.

The fact is that Constitution makes it illegal for local state, or federal law to recognize any establishment of religion...be it a mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.

By requiring a felon to go to church....that establishment of religion is being recognized. This is unConstitutional..which means it is illegal.

Strawman arguments cannot deny this simple fact, and your deliberate mischaracterizing of the 1st Amendment and our Constitution is disgusting.
 
Last edited:
If it is a choice, then how is it unconstitutional?
 
Thunder said:
This is a wonderful....yet pathetic strawmen argument.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument? Aren't you the same person who made that drug use post??

Where is the strawman? You have to point it out, as I did with you, rather than just make the charge.
The fact is that Constitution makes it illegal for local state, or federal law to recognize any establishment of religion...be it a mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.
Click to expand...

Really? Then lets see it. And where us any religion being established?
By requiring a felon to go to church....that establishment of religion is being recognized. This is unConstitutional..which means it is illegal.
Click to expand...

Well of course Churches are being recognized, as are other places of worship. Are you unclear on the difference between the recognition of a Church and the establishment of a Church?
Strawman arguments cannot deny this simple fact, and your deliberate mischaracterizing of the 1st Amendment and our Constitution is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Again, this is what the First Amendment says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

How is Congress involved here and what religion is being established? If you do not understand what that simple sentence says, please get someone to explain it to you, word for word. There are only ten of them.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Then perhaps you can explain where Congress is establishing a religion in Kentucky?
Click to expand...

It doesn't pass the "Lemon Test".

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

In general, any government sanctioned mandate that requires a person to attend church is advancing religion, in general. It does not have to be a specific religion to apply. The entire point of this punishment is to attempt to "introduce" offenders to religion, so then they are promoting religion.

Now, I think it is more than that though because it also means that a person without religion is subjected to a comparably "harsher" punishment option than a person who has religion already.
 
Thunder said:
its unConstitutional because one of the choices violates the Establishment Cause of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Strawman argument? Aren't you the same person who made that drug use post??

Where is the strawman? You have to point it out, as I did with you, rather than just make the charge....
Click to expand...

THIS....is your strawman. Its that or a lie.

Grant said:
...The problem lies with your own gullibility in believing what groups like the ACLU tell you and then swallowing it whole.. That is the real game being played. And you have been so seriously suckered into that game that you will quote the Constitution without giving the words within any thought at all. You will just recite and repeat what you've been so frequently told....
Click to expand...


It appears that you have NO CLUE what the Establishment Clause means. You also fail to understand that the rights protected in the the Constitution are for the States, cities, counties, towns, and all other government municipalties..ALONG with Congress. I have tried to explain this to you but your clear pathetic bias prevents you from grasping this.

..And where us any religion being established? Well of course Churches are being recognized, as are other places of worship. Are you unclear on the difference between the recognition of a Church and the establishment of a Church? Again, this is what the First Amendment says. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". How is Congress involved here and what religion is being established?...
Click to expand...

clearly you have either never learned about the Constitution or you are just playing silly & childish games.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
It doesn't pass the "Lemon Test".

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

In general, any government sanctioned mandate that requires a person to attend church is advancing religion, in general. It does not have to be a specific religion to apply. The entire point of this punishment is to attempt to "introduce" offenders to religion, so then they are promoting religion.

Now, I think it is more than that though because it also means that a person without religion is subjected to a comparably "harsher" punishment option than a person who has religion already.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and that was very informative. However, at the end of the entry it says

Lemon's future is somewhat uncertain. Sustained criticism by conservative Justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas,[2] lack of a clear reaffirmation of the central tenets of Lemon over the years since the 1980s, and inconsistent application in major Establishment Clause cases has led some legal commentators and lower court judges to believe that Lemon's days are numbered, and that the Court has implicitly left the decision of whether to apply the test in a specific case up to lower courts.[citation needed] This has resulted in a patchwork pattern of enforcement in circuit courts across the nation; while some courts apply Lemon in all or most cases, others apply it in few or none.[citation needed] The Supreme Court itself has applied the Lemon test as recently as 2000 in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.[3]
Click to expand...

It seems the issue has not yet been settled and according to the rather clear wording of the 'Establishment" clause it seems that the SCOTUS might one day revisit the controversy..
 
Grant said:
..It seems the issue has not yet been settled and according to the rather clear wording of the 'Establishment" clause it seems that the SCOTUS might one day revisit the controversy..
Click to expand...

requiring a convict go to jail OR go to Church, advances religion, hence violates the second Lemon test.
 
Thunder said:
THIS....is your strawman. Its that or a lie.




It appears that you have NO CLUE what the Establishment Clause means. You also fail to understand that the rights protected in the the Constitution are for the States, cities, counties, towns, and all other government municipalties..ALONG with Congress. I have tried to explain this to you but your clear pathetic bias prevents you from grasping this.



clearly you have either never learned about the Constitution or you are just playing silly & childish games.
Click to expand...


The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]
Click to expand...
Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Thanks, and that was very informative. However, at the end of the entry it says



It seems the issue has not yet been settled and according to the rather clear wording of the 'Establishment" clause it seems that the SCOTUS might one day revisit the controversy..
Click to expand...

They may, but as of right now, it is what we have and what the lower courts are basing many decisions off.

And it still does not address the other Constitutional issue that the choice in punishment discriminates based on someone's involvement level within a/a few specific religions within the area. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment in that it offers a relatively unequal punishment option to those not involved in a religion within the area already and those who are involved with a religion already in the area.
 
Thunder said:
requiring a convict go to jail OR go to Church, advances religion, hence violates the second Lemon test.
Click to expand...

From the Establishment Clause.

The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
Click to expand...

Is the Kentucky community preferring one religion over another? If so, which ones?

We can understand the Free Exercise Clause because the delinquents are given an option whether they want to attend or not. If it is their free choice to attend then they are exercising their freedom of religion.
 
Grant said:
....url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause]Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ur....
Click to expand...

thank you for that. This ruling clearly violates the 2nd part of the understanding that YOU posted.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another


requiring that a convict go to jail or go to Church on Sunday is a governmental preference for Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc etc....hence violates the Establishment Clause.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
They may, but as of right now, it is what we have and what the lower courts are basing many decisions off.

And it still does not address the other Constitutional issue that the choice in punishment discriminates based on someone's involvement level within a/a few specific religions within the area. This is a violation of the 14th Amendment in that it offers a relatively unequal punishment option to those not involved in a religion within the area already and those who are involved with a religion already in the area.
Click to expand...

Is this the portion you're referring to?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
 
Thunder said:
thank you for that. This ruling clearly violates the 2nd part of the understanding that YOU posted.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another


requiring that a convict go to jail or go to Church on Sunday is a governmental preference for Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc etc....hence violates the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Jediism, Wicca, Pastafarianism, and Odinism, plus any of millions of personal beliefs that individuals might hold that stray away from an established religion just enough or more so that they don't fit in and would likely be persecuted or berated or called out in any of those "approved" churches for expressing those beliefs.
 
Thunder said:
thank you for that. This ruling clearly violates the 2nd part of the understanding that YOU posted.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another
Click to expand...

Where is one religion being preferenced over another? Does this only apply to Christians and not Jews, Muslims, etc? I read nothing like that, though it is a question that could be raised to the local courts.

requiring that a convict go to jail or go to Church on Sunday is a governmental preference for Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, Shintoism, etc etc....hence violates the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

But no one has said that.

I suspect that's because there are few delinquent Taoists, Shintos or Hindus in the community.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Where is one religion being preferenced over another? Does this only apply to Christians and not Jews, Muslims, etc? I read nothing like that, though it is a question that could be raised to the local courts...
Click to expand...

Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Taoists, do not go to Church on Sunday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom