• 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?

A step is not establishing and, besides, the Christian Church is already very well established.
A step (law) towards establishment of religion is a law respecting an establishment of religion and is unconstitutional.
 
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.
well, yeah, that's kinda the point. It's not a mandatory punishment, it's an alternative punitive action meant to straighten the offender out before they go too far. There are a lot of alternative programs available, and the only reason this one is making headlines is because it involves the dreaded "R" word.
 
What service? Preaching about the Bible or teaching people about a specific religion's beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are, is not a community service. That is what we are talking about here. It isn't like those offered this choice are required to actually get any help or go to any other specific church meetings or take any self-improvement classes that are only being offered by the churches. They are only required to attend church services, as in Sunday preaching hour(s), to hear about that church's particular views on how a higher power expects a person to behave and what may happen in the afterlife should you not follow those expectations.

No one has a problem with a church being able to be involved in certain punishments when the religion of the church has little to do with what the point of the involvement is. The point of having someone do community service is to have the person make up for something they did by helping others. Even if the community service is being performed at a soup kitchen run by a church, the point of the soup kitchen is not to preach about the beliefs of that church but to help people which is in line with the secular point of the punishment.

I know, right? All that religious bull**** about loving your neighbor and acting with character and integrity, who want's that in their community.
 
I know, right? All that religious bull**** about loving your neighbor and acting with character and integrity, who want's that in their community.
There's nothing at all wrong with that message and I would hope that all convicts seek out that message and take it to heart once they're done serving their time -- but while they're in the custody of the state, I would hope the state is not crossing the church/state line by sanctioning religion.
 
Why? The Supreme Court has ruled on it many times already.

  • 1948: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

  • 1961: Torcaso v. Watkins
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

  • 1962: Engel v. Vitale
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

  • 1963: Abington School District v. Schempp
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

  • 1968: Epperson v. Arkansas
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

  • 1980: Stone v. Graham
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

  • 1985: Wallace v. Jaffree
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

  • 1987: Edwards v. Aquillard
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

  • 1989: Allegheny County v. ACLU
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

  • 1992: Lee v. Weisman
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Seems like they should continue then until they get it right.
 
who is your "team"?

Evil Conservative Industries.



is this a game?

Yes. Debatepolitics.com is a game. Nothing on this or any other web-sight is to be taken seriously, because it's just a web site and we are just anons. We don't decide law. We don't enforce it. We can't give or take anything from anyone, though you wouldn't think so given how most people speak of themselves around here. Nothing we post here will have any impact on the real world.

Non of us are here to work. Everyone is here for whatever they personally consider entertainment.
 
Last edited:
Which religion are they people in this community trying to establish?
I wouldn't say that they're establishing a religion, but this is definitely a law respecting a religious establishment, which is a no-go.

IMO, send the little bastards to boot camp for a couple months. I'm willing to bet that most young adults who commit minor, non-violent crimes are lacking in much needed discipline.
 
There's nothing at all wrong with that message and I would hope that all convicts seek out that message and take it to heart once they're done serving their time -- but while they're in the custody of the state, I would hope the state is not crossing the church/state line by sanctioning religion.

They're not sanctioning religion any more than they are sanctioning recycling or cleaning highways or any other community service, They are hoping these young offenders learn something of traditional shared values. There is a great possibility that they might actually come away with some life lessons and turn away from a life of crime.

Religion is to Leftists what kryptonite is to Superman.
 
I wouldn't say that they're establishing a religion, but this is definitely a law respecting a religious establishment, which is a no-go.

IMO, send the little bastards to boot camp for a couple months. I'm willing to bet that most young adults who commit minor, non-violent crimes are lacking in much needed discipline.

I like your tough-on-crime, hang-em-high attitude but there are also cases where the idea of brotherly love and learning to be a good neighbor can also play a role..
 
They're not sanctioning religion any more than they are sanctioning recycling or cleaning highways or any other community service, They are hoping these young offenders learn something of traditional shared values. There is a great possibility that they might actually come away with some life lessons and turn away from a life of crime.

Religion is to Leftists what kryptonite is to Superman.

Ah, Liberals are godless now?
 
There's nothing at all wrong with that message and I would hope that all convicts seek out that message and take it to heart once they're done serving their time -- but while they're in the custody of the state, I would hope the state is not crossing the church/state line by sanctioning religion.

"But" is a magical word which means "I'm about to contradict myself, so just forget everything I just said".

Where are the secularists with their alternative options? Why aren't they speaking out? Why don't they care about other secularists? Why are secularists leaving their 'members' (using the term loosely) to fend for themselves?

Apparently secularists don't care about this, otherwise they would be representing their own.
 
Which religion are they people in this community trying to establish?
Nice strawman ... notice the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of [a] religion"

... it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
 
Nice strawman ... notice the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of [a] religion"

... it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

So you are looking s a Church as an 'establishment'?
 
They're not sanctioning religion any more than they are sanctioning recycling or cleaning highways or any other community service
Great analogy ... yes, the state is absolutely sancationing the cleaning of highways, which they run.

sanc·tion
1. authoritative permission or approval, as for an action.


Religion is to Leftists what kryptonite is to Superman.
That is complete and utter bull****. This is about upholding the U.S. Constitution and not even about religion per se. Some of us are thrilled we escaped the state/religion marriage like that of the Church of England and will fight vigilantly to protect this nation from ever moving in that direction. That by no means translates into we don't attend church on the Sabbath, many of us do.
 
I know, right? All that religious bull**** about loving your neighbor and acting with character and integrity, who want's that in their community.

Leave that up to them to do voluntarily. No need to force any message upon them as a more lenient punishment.
 
I'd consider that more normal than:
- Westboro Baptists
- Pentecostals
- Evangelicals
- Anybody that follows: Ted Haggard, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, etc.
- Most Catholics
- Most Baptists

Westboro Baptists are obviously not part of the community under discussion, nor are Ted Haggard, Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. You don't know most Catholics or Baptists and probably not most Pentecostals or Evangelicals either, so don't pretend you do.
 
Westboro Baptists are obviously not part of the community under discussion, nor are Ted Haggard, Joel Osteen or Rick Warren. You don't know most Catholics or Baptists and probably not most Pentecostals or Evangelicals either, so don't pretend you do.

Why aren't they apart of the discussion? Last time I checked, "Marijuana churches" aren't a part of the discussion either. I know enough of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom