• 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?

however, if, repeat IF, all they had to do was go and stand or sit inside the building, BFD I'm sure they would probably rather do that than go to jail.

Of course, and if someone had the choice to sit in church or go to jail; they'd most likely choose to sit in church even though it'd be completely pointless. But sitting in planned parenthood would be different than sitting in church? I don't think so. And if one is OK with offering only church as an alternative to jail, then one would have to be perfectly ok with offering only planned parenthood as alternative to jail as well.
 
Of course, and if someone had the choice to sit in church or go to jail; they'd most likely choose to sit in church even though it'd be completely pointless. But sitting in planned parenthood would be different than sitting in church? I don't think so. And if one is OK with offering only church as an alternative to jail, then one would have to be perfectly ok with offering only planned parenthood as alternative to jail as well.

and IF, as I said, the requirement was to just go and sit at the local planned parenthood for an hour a week and sleep, I'd have no problem with that (other than the same problem I have with the church option, which is it doesn't do anything to punish the criminal)

but you and I both know it wouldn't work that way. they would be forced, as you said, to mop floors or clean toilets or do something which would materially benefit PP.

so, yet again I ask, how would the church materially benefit from having them sit there and then answer questions about the service.

If you can answer that question, I will concede your point.
 
Last edited:
and IF, as I said, the requirement was to just go and sit at the local planned parenthood for an hour a week and sleep, I'd have no problem with that (other than the same problem I have with the church option, which is it doesn't do anything to punish the criminal)

but you and I both know it wouldn't work that way. they would be forced, as you said, to mop floors or clean toilets or do something which would materially benefit PP.

so, yet again I ask, how would the church materially benefit from having them sit there and then answer questions about the service.

If you can answer that question, I will concede your point.

It wouldn't work that way? Why? It was set up that way for the Church. Me thinks you just want to try your best to spin the hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical so we can set it to whatever standards we want. We can say they have to go and attend Planned Parenthood; or we can say that people should have to help keep the Church cleaned up. Either or to bring the two on level.
 
How about we offer a choice to attend a strip club every Friday for a year (for the sake of the hypothetical they do not have to pay a cover charge to get in). Its a choice, and nobody is forcing anyone to participate. They do not even have to look, nor do they have to tip the dancers, and can just sit in the back of the room (or the lobby even) reading a bible if they want.
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't work that way? Why? It was set up that way for the Church. Me thinks you just want to try your best to spin the hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical so we can set it to whatever standards we want. We can say they have to go and attend Planned Parenthood; or we can say that people should have to help keep the Church cleaned up. Either or to bring the two on level.

wrongo. the deal in Bay Minette was that they could attend church and then answer questions about the service for a year. not just go and sit there.

so, until you can show me how doing that will materially benefit the church, your PP comparison is invalid.

and since I have asked 4 times and you keep avoiding the question, logic dictates that you don't have an answer
 
How about we offer a choice to attend a strip club every Friday for a year (for the sake of the hypothetical they do not have to pay a cover charge to get in). Its a choice, and nobody is forcing anyone to participate. They do not even have to look, nor do they have to tip the dancers, and can just sit in the back of the room (or the lobby even) reading a bible if they want.

now that, my friend, is a valid comparison. since they are not materially benefitting the strip club by simply being there. in fact, they are harming the club by taking up a seat that a paying customer might otherwise occupy.



and, like the church sentence, it's a bad idea because it basically lets the criminal off scott free.
 
Last edited:
What if the offender is an atheist? For this reason, I believe that this is unconstitutional. Community service? OK, that is good, but not something where the government is uncontitutionally forcing religion down someone's throat. Let the offender bust bricks or something instead.

Article is here
.

Discussion?

There's more than just atheists, man. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and a bunch more. Even different sects of Christianity, which aren't compatible with others practices. However, if the person objects due to religious reasons, I don't see any judge risking his/her career over something like this.

Plus, I might add that this is for non-violent offenses. Like shoplifting, smoking a joint, and other minor stupid **** like that. Sending some punk kid to an overcrowded correctional facility to be surrounded by real criminals is just dumb.
 
Last edited:
There's more than just atheists, man. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and a bunch more. Even different sects of Christianity, which aren't compatible with others practices.

However, if the person objects due to religious reasons, I don't see any judge risking his/her career over something like this.

if the person objects due to religious reasons...they can always go to jail like they were supposed to. no one is forcing them to go to church.
 
now that, my friend, is a valid comparison. since they are not materially benefitting the strip club by simply being there. in fact, they are harming the club by taking up a seat that a paying customer might otherwise occupy.



and, like the church sentence, it's a bad idea because it basically lets the criminal off scott free.

I agree it basically lets [some] criminals off scott free, especially those who attend strip clubs regularly already. Continuing this hypothetical though, lets say you have the following choices.

1) Jail + charges stick
2) pay fine + charges stick
3) Attend strip club and charges are dismissed.

No church option here because we are using this to draw a parallel to the current situation. lets also assume a large portion of the community feel strongly that regular strip club attendance is potentially a deterrent to crime.

Now there are a handful of people in this community who do not attend strip clubs, and in fact are adverse to the idea of stepping foot into one - to them this is a punishment.

Sure they have a "choice". Go to jail or pay the fine and have the charges stick on their record, or go to the strip club and have them vanish. like it never even happened. This is the same for those who attend the strip club every friday already, and are not offended or put out in any way from this option.

So we have group a) commits a misdemeanor their path and their "choice" to having charges dismissed equates to life as usual, zero disruption, zero change in their life and their routine, zero ramifications and zero punishment.

group b) commits the same misdemeanor, they get the same "choice" to have theoir charges dismissed, however their choice is a disruption of life as usual, a change in their routine, and for some potentially a change that is flat out offensive. For this group there are ramifications and this is a punishment.

Does this seem like a fair set of choices, or a fair standard? There is a supposed "choice", yet only one path for the charges to get dismissed. Some essentiually go unpunished and do not have to deviate from their normal routine at all, others would be very put out, for them it would be punishment.
 
What's not to like is that it provides a special status to religious organizations.

Allowing religious organizations to participate in managing community service along with all of the pre-existing non-religious organizations in no way gives any church any special status.

No such special status exists.

If anything, religious organizations have been discriminated against all this time by not being allowed to provide this service.
 
last I checked they don't commit infanticide at church. perhaps a better analogy would be community service at the local animal shelter killing puppies and kittens

So... you can't abort an infant, last I checked.
 
I agree it basically lets [some] criminals off scott free, especially those who attend strip clubs regularly already. Continuing this hypothetical though, lets say you have the following choices.

1) Jail + charges stick
2) pay fine + charges stick
3) Attend strip club and charges are dismissed.

No church option here because we are using this to draw a parallel to the current situation. lets also assume a large portion of the community feel strongly that regular strip club attendance is potentially a deterrent to crime.

Now there are a handful of people in this community who do not attend strip clubs, and in fact are adverse to the idea of stepping foot into one - to them this is a punishment.

Sure they have a "choice". Go to jail or pay the fine and have the charges stick on their record, or go to the strip club and have them vanish. like it never even happened. This is the same for those who attend the strip club every friday already, and are not offended or put out in any way from this option.

So we have group a) commits a misdemeanor their path and their "choice" to having charges dismissed equates to life as usual, zero disruption, zero change in their life and their routine, zero ramifications and zero punishment.

group b) commits the same misdemeanor, they get the same "choice" to have theoir charges dismissed, however their choice is a disruption of life as usual, a change in their routine, and for some potentially a change that is flat out offensive. For this group there are ramifications and this is a punishment.

Does this seem like a fair set of choices, or a fair standard? There is a supposed "choice", yet only one path for the charges to get dismissed. Some essentiually go unpunished and do not have to deviate from their normal routine at all, others would be very put out, for them it would be punishment.

I-Support-Single-Moms-T-shirt.jpg
..........................
 
Allowing religious organizations to participate in managing community service along with all of the pre-existing non-religious organizations in no way gives any church any special status.

No such special status exists.

If anything, religious organizations have been discriminated against all this time by not being allowed to provide this service.

First- allowing criminals to "serve time" with churches but not non-religious alternatives would give them a special status under the law. Also, they don't pay taxes which is pretty special.
 
So... you can't abort an infant, last I checked.
\

that is a totally separate arguement. abortion = killing whether you want to consider a fetus a human or not is irrelevent. which is why I brought up the animal shelter example.
 
First- allowing criminals to "serve time" with churches but not non-religious alternatives would give them a special status under the law. Also, they don't pay taxes which is pretty special.

which is totally irrelevent since the church, in no way, shape or form, materially benefits from having that criminal sitting in their services.
 
First- allowing criminals to "serve time" with churches but not non-religious alternatives would give them a special status under the law. Also, they don't pay taxes which is pretty special.

They don't pay taxes for other, unrelated reasons...mainly being that it keeps religion out of the government.

If Joe Shmuck did something stupid and was sentenced to, say, 40 hours of community service, how are you directly affected if he serves through a church program as opposed to another program? He shows up in the same clothes, and does the same kind of work. The only difference is that the person who validates his time may have a religious title in their name.

Links demonstrating how you are materially harmed are appreciated, but not required.
 
Last edited:
So this thread caused me to do a little more reading on the religious initiatives used in the prison system. Nothing real conclusive...lots of people say that while prisoners are in prison, the religious services help and provide support but the long term value on recidivism is still unknown. not the point.

There were a whole lot of groups that would have absolutely zero involvement in prisons or the care/treatment of prisoners but fell out of the woodwork to sue to stop the practice for no other reason than the fact that religion is involved. My conclusion...there are a bunch of petty pathetic ****ed up people in this country.

Any of you that object to the practice as cited in the OP...rather than give lip service because your delicate sensibilities are offended...please feel free to volunteer your services and engage in problem solving solution rather thanwhine and bitch because someone offers an alternative you dont like.
 
wrongo. the deal in Bay Minette was that they could attend church and then answer questions about the service for a year. not just go and sit there.

so, until you can show me how doing that will materially benefit the church, your PP comparison is invalid.

and since I have asked 4 times and you keep avoiding the question, logic dictates that you don't have an answer

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?
 
and what is that? what secular option does he have to going to church every Sunday? can he go to the movies instead?

Jail...didn't you read the article?
 
They don't pay taxes for other, unrelated reasons...mainly being that it keeps religion out of the government.

If Joe Shmuck did something stupid and was sentenced to, say, 40 hours of community service, how are you directly affected if he serves through a church program as opposed to another program? He shows up in the same clothes, and does the same kind of work. The only difference is that the person who validates his time may have a religious title in their name.

Links demonstrating how you are materially harmed are appreciated, but not required.

But that is not what this program is. If it was, most people would probably have zero problem with the program, as long as the goal was actually getting the person to actually do something as punishment for their crime. This program just forces the person to attend church and then answer questions about the service afterward. There is no requirement to actually help the church or the community. There isn't even a requirement, from what I can tell, to attend church sponsored counseling or classes of any kind. All that is being said is required is the person attend Sunday service. That is the issue because there is nothing else equivalent to that being offered for those who are not religious or who do not already belong to one of those churches involved in this.

Equivalent to sitting in a church service would be sitting for an hour or two discussing beliefs/ideas/a book/whatever or having to listen to someone else do this. Maybe if everyone was given the option of having to attend a book report or a sports discussion or a political discussion every week for an hour or two, that would be equivalent punishment and would probably satisfy any Constitutionality issues. But overall, none of these things in themselves, including the church attendance option, are likely to be seen as a proper punishment by most people. Now, it would depend on the crime being broken, but if it is a crime that deserves attention enough to deserve any legal punishment, it should probably be a harsher punishment than these things for most people.
 
no one is forcing them to go to church.

The government in fact is. It takes force to put one in jail or make them go to church. There's not really an option, it's false choice. It's like saying I'll shoot you in the head, or shoot you in the knee and you bitch about not being able to walk right the rest of your life and I say "well you could have always taken the shot to the head, it was your choice".

Who in their right bloody mind would take jail over sitting in church? Even if it's not your religion, it's avoiding punishment and staying out of jail. There is no rational reason to take jail over church. Both options represent force.
 
Jail...didn't you read the article?

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.
 
Jail...didn't you read the article?

Go to church have the charges dismissed.

Go to jail have a record.

This secular "choice" does not even have a trace of equivalency
 
But that is not what this program is. If it was, most people would probably have zero problem with the program, as long as the goal was actually getting the person to actually do something as punishment for their crime. This program just forces the person to attend church and then answer questions about the service afterward. There is no requirement to actually help the church or the community. There isn't even a requirement, from what I can tell, to attend church sponsored counseling or classes of any kind. All that is being said is required is the person attend Sunday service. That is the issue because there is nothing else equivalent to that being offered for those who are not religious or who do not already belong to one of those churches involved in this.

Equivalent to sitting in a church service would be sitting for an hour or two discussing beliefs/ideas/a book/whatever or having to listen to someone else do this. Maybe if everyone was given the option of having to attend a book report or a sports discussion or a political discussion every week for an hour or two, that would be equivalent punishment and would probably satisfy any Constitutionality issues. But overall, none of these things in themselves, including the church attendance option, are likely to be seen as a proper punishment by most people. Now, it would depend on the crime being broken, but if it is a crime that deserves attention enough to deserve any legal punishment, it should probably be a harsher punishment than these things for most people.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom