Results 1 to 25 of 45
-
05-31-2005, 09:49 PM #1An Awesome Dude
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,624
Judge sentences offenders to attend church
Tinyurl is the answer for posting long urls!!!
-
05-31-2005, 09:51 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 1,667
Exactly, what does it mean "some say?" It clearly violates the separation of church and sate.
-
05-31-2005, 09:58 PM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by Lev
Exactly, what does it mean "some say?" It clearly violates the separation of church and sate.
-
05-31-2005, 10:34 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,467
interesting, definately must be either a very religious county or a very religious judge; i cant believe it though, this is definately violating that law and i hope someone else steps in before this becomes a pure hard-core religious county
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
-
05-31-2005, 10:44 PM #5Eternal Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2000
- Location
- Tasmania, Australia.
- Posts
- 3,590
I don't follow. Why would the church want to be seperated from the opportunity to help rehabilitate those who are messing up their lives. *shrug*
I'm all for the idea, and I don't have any religious ties at all. But those who I know of that do, generally have their heads screwed on properly. Why not give offenders a chance (it's not mandatory, it's simply an option) to receive some proper guidance, instead of getting in deeper by landing themselves in jail.
Each to their own I guess.
Gary
-
05-31-2005, 10:50 PM #6Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Well it doesnt say what religion, or even any denomination for that fact. Not a bad idea actually. If you goto church, any church, with a problem, you are more likely to find new friends to help you out of your problem.
I have a feeling these arent hard core druggies he's giving this option to. It's probably those who seem to do drugs because they feel helpless in their lives, and may feel they have nothing to live for, or are good people, but simply in a down period in their lives. I seriously doubt his giving them that option has anything to do with religion itself, but the type of atmosphere it would put them in.
In church you wont be doing drugs, and there is help available at them. Many churches have programs in place to help in such cases. You can argue that there are public rehab programs in place.... except for the fact they usually arent too helpful. People there really dont care about you because they are just there to earn a paycheck. People at church dont go there to get paid, and simply seeing you get better by helping you out is enough reward for them.
It isnt the religion that will help you when you go to church, it's the people there. Some of these druggies may have already been to rehab. This may be an option the judge has come up with as a possible alternative because he knows public rehab hasnt helped them..... and I think most people can agree going to jail often makes them worse. If I were a judge, I doubt I would wnat to conict someone and put a mark on their record just because they made a mistake and got addicted to a drug. I would want to help them, not punish them. If church can help them, thats should be an option. It's not like he's "forcing" them to do it, it's just an option he is allowing them.... which there is nothing wrong about that. If he was "requiring it", that would be totall different and completely wrong both legally and morally.
-
05-31-2005, 11:02 PM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 1,667
What it is saying is this:
If you are religious and believe in God, you can skip Jail. If you aren't religious, you can't.
How is this following the law?
-
05-31-2005, 11:03 PM #8Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,467
Well, I dont know, I just read The Crucible so hardcore religion is still on my mind =P
All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better.
-
05-31-2005, 11:06 PM #9Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Originally posted by Lev
What it is saying is this:
If you are religious and believe in God, you can skip Jail. If you aren't religious, you can't.
How is this following the law?
-
05-31-2005, 11:15 PM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Location
- Fairfax, Virginia
- Posts
- 6,834
Originally posted by Webdude
How is that? The option givin is "You have three choices. Go to jail, go to rehab, or go visit a church". What makes you think you have to be religious to choose to go to church?
-
05-31-2005, 11:20 PM #11Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Originally posted by SniperDevil
While a good idea in theory, this practice violates a key clause in our constitution by forging a relationship between church and state. Thus, no matter how good or bad this idea is theoretically, the point is (or, at least, should be) moot because it is clearly unconstitutional.
It's not forging a relationship any more than sending them to a contract rehab is. Do you really think this judge is thinking about a partnership between church and law, or do you maybe think he actually cares about people and doesnt want to be cold hearted like you would like him to be?
-
05-31-2005, 11:31 PM #12WHT Addict
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 169
I would take the judge to mean to offer the church as an alternative rehab center. Perhaps the judge believed that the chances of successful rehab are better in churches than in one the usual rehab institutions?
About the state law, if one would research carefully into how most nations, not all, get their constitutions and laws, one would be able to tell that they were derived from judicial laws found in the Bible, however much they might have been watered down or altered over the centuries."Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
-
05-31-2005, 11:39 PM #13WHT Addict
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 169
Pardon me. My point was that the judge, who would have studied the history of how laws of nations came to be when working towards their legal exams, would have known that very well.
"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
-
05-31-2005, 11:46 PM #14Webhosting Reseller
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Cebu
- Posts
- 1,054
What about the "right" to have religion?
He who hates correction will die. --Proverbs 15:10
Jeffrey's Cute Blog
-
06-01-2005, 12:03 AM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Posts
- 1,667
Originally posted by Webdude
How is that? The option givin is "You have three choices. Go to jail, go to rehab, or go visit a church". What makes you think you have to be religious to choose to go to church?
Originally posted by Jeffreyw
What about the "right" to have religion?
-
06-01-2005, 12:11 AM #16Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 1,274
Originally posted by Webdude
Ok, fine. Send all drug user to jail then, I dont care. When you by the book, thats what you get. Do you ever have answers for anything? Or do you just critisize everything?
It's not forging a relationship any more than sending them to a contract rehab is. Do you really think this judge is thinking about a partnership between church and law, or do you maybe think he actually cares about people and doesnt want to be cold hearted like you would like him to be?hm what should I put in my sig?
-
06-01-2005, 12:17 AM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Originally posted by ChaosHosting
Send all drug users to jail? Fascist. And it is forgoing a relationship more than sending them to rehab is, most rehab is not religiously based. I have no problem with allowing it if someone wants to go to church rather than rehab or jail, but offering it to those who have not requested it is most definitely violating church and state
as per others...
When you are in jail/prison, you dont "have" to go listen to the priest either. But it is an option given to you. Are you saying that shouldnt be the case either since a jail/prison is part of the government? After all, why should prisoners have to be in a prison where a Priest comes and speaks his stuff?
Again, the person is not being forced, it is a choice given between jail, rehab, or church. If a person doesnt want to go to jail, and doesnt want to go to church, he/she still has the rehab option.
Funny how regardless of all the options available, people will jump right on the "church" topic as if it's pure evil for that to even be an option. This shouldnt be about legality, it should be about helping people.. When regular state sponsored rehab doesnt work as it usually doesnt, and jail isnt the best choice.... it doesnt hurt to offer other things such as church.
I only see people critisizing, as everyone in this country can do. None of you are saying anything unique by doing so. Be a solutionist, not a complainer.. Or, be a robot and go strictly by the books. Too bad "life" isnt by the books, it would be so much easier.
-
06-01-2005, 12:23 AM #18Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 1,274
Originally posted by Webdude
Again, the person is not being forced, it is a choice given between jail, rehab, or church. If a person doesnt want to go to jail, and doesnt want to go to church, he/she still has the rehab option.
Funny how regardless of all the options available, people will jump right on the "church" topic as if it's pure evil for that to even be an option. This shouldnt be about legality, it should be about helping people.. When regular state sponsored rehab doesnt work as it usually doesnt, and jail isnt the best choice.... it doesnt hurt to offer other things such as church.
I only see people critisizing, as everyone in this country can do. None of you are saying anything unique by doing so. Be a solutionist, not a complainer.. Or, be a robot and go strictly by the books. Too bad "life" isnt by the books, it would be so much easier.hm what should I put in my sig?
-
06-01-2005, 12:38 AM #19Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2000
- Location
- The Woodlands, Tx
- Posts
- 5,974
Originally posted by ChaosHosting
In my opinion, it should be about legality and constitutionality, and if you value a society which is free from persecution and tyranny, you would too. Yes, helping people is good, but the judge's church option clearly discriminates against religions which don't value regular organized meetings. And what about Rastafarians? Should someone arrested which marijuana possession be able to get out of jail by going to Rastafarian services?
Dictionary.com - Justice (Remember that word?)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
But, if you feel that is wrong, then fine. Helping people is wrong. Let's continue sending them to jail. I'm sure they will come out of that jail as fine upstanding people as jail is meant to do. I have faith in our prison system to help correct people, after all, it's the government, not church, as church is so evil we should never even say the word. Just like I have faith in our justice system to keep killers penned up
After all, the law has such a better success rate of helping people than do churches. And... the law is the law. Rgeardless if it helps or or only makes things worse..
-
06-01-2005, 07:45 AM #20Disabled
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 9,851
I wonder if this judge extends the same offer if the offender would choose to go to a mosque or a synagogue or a jehovah's witness meeting, or a rastafarian church.
-
06-01-2005, 08:46 AM #21WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 167
Does NOT Violate
This does not violate the separation of church and state! People need to wake up and read the law! The law of separation of church and state SIMPLY STATES that the United States cannot declare an OFFICIAL RELIGION for the United States, it is not saying that state cannot be affiliated with something religious, or vice versa. This is the problem with Americans nowdays, you dont read laws, you simply hear someone else say something and believe it without even reading it. Quit crying 'separation of church and state!!!!' every time religion gets affiliated with government. The first amendment some of you are crying about says this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Therefore, it is saying that Congress cannot make a law saying that Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion is the official religion of the United States or its Government. Tada!
====================================
One time I was sitting outside at college and there was a pastor out there evangelising, a student came up and was asking him questions off of a piece of paper about contradictions in the Bible. Here is the dialog:
Pastor: What is that piece of paper you are holding?
Student: Its something I found on a website on the internet. It talks about all of the contradictions in the Bible.
Pastor: Ah, did you look up those contradictions in the Bible, or did you just take the website's word for it?
Student: Nah, I just printed it off.
Pastor: Then how do you know the person is even telling the truth if you didnt read it or look it up yourself?
Student: I dont... I gotta go to class... (walks away embarassed)
====================================
Think about that people. Dont just believe everything you hear, look it up. You may think this violates church and state, but it doesnt. The law clearly states that the United States simply cannot declare a single, official religion.Last edited by MyFocal; 06-01-2005 at 08:51 AM.
Bobbie
Cornerstone IT
-
06-01-2005, 10:08 AM #22Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Hollywood, CA
- Posts
- 3,052
Re: Does NOT Violate
Originally posted by tadevelopers
The law of separation of church and state SIMPLY STATES that the United States cannot declare an OFFICIAL RELIGION for the United States, it is not saying that state cannot be affiliated with something religious, or vice versa. This is the problem with Americans nowdays, you dont read laws, you simply hear someone else say something and believe it without even reading it. Quit crying 'separation of church and state!!!!' every time religion gets affiliated with government. The first amendment some of you are crying about says this:
The seperation of church and state protects private citizens and the church. The church can not control the government and government cannot control the church. I'm just wondering where you got "official religion" idea from? Anyways, it also indicates that private citizens cannot have relgious beliefs imposed on them by other private citizens who represent the government. This includes police chiefs, school teachers, ....JUDGES
If this judge says you must attend a baptist church, then yes it's a clear violation. If when the judge says church, he means any religous entity then he might have a fighting chance against an organization like the ACLU.
-
06-01-2005, 10:14 AM #23Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Location
- Atlanta
- Posts
- 374
In some small manner, I agree with tadevelopers...
It was only a few years ago that they decided that the 10 commandments in the courthouse was "unconstitutional."
The constitution is an amazing article to read, as it is open to interpretation so that it can always be fitting to the times.
It just happens that people are interpreting it in a different way than it was originally. And so it will, several years from now, be interpreted in a new way.TS-Host, A Tulip Company - Hosting since 1995! - AS7219
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Bargain Dedicated Servers and High performance Dedicated!
http://www.ts-host.com/ -@- dburling@ts-host.com -@- 1-800-977-TOWN
-
06-01-2005, 10:26 AM #24WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
- Posts
- 167
Case
Case, thanks for stating I am completely incorrect. That makes me feel much better. However, the judge is NOT sentencing them to church - He is giving them a choice - Church or Jail. Therefore, this is totally fine. Im glad you are right and I 'obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. '
Last edited by MyFocal; 06-01-2005 at 10:29 AM.
Bobbie
Cornerstone IT
-
06-01-2005, 10:46 AM #25Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Hollywood, CA
- Posts
- 3,052
Re: Case
Originally posted by tadevelopers
Case, thanks for stating I am completely incorrect. That makes me feel much better. However, the judge is NOT sentencing them to church - He is giving them a choice - Church or Jail. Therefore, this is totally fine. Im glad you are right and I 'obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. '
If the judge tells someone you must attend a certain church or face jail time then he isn't giving them a choice, he's giving them an ultimatum which is a big difference. Choose church or go to jail... doesnt really sound like a choice to if you ask me.