It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama Judge Gives Criminals Choice: Go to Jail or Go to Church

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Would take jail before ever setting foot in a church.
Better class of people in most jails than the sanctimonious hypocrits that inhabit churches.
Lastly I've neither need nor use for churches and their primitive barbaric religion that has caused / continues to cause bloodshed and misery in the world.




posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


no, this is not the way to handle people. community service would be of greater benefit for the offender and the township in my opinion.

someone else mentioned AA. ever been to an AA meeting, in search of help from a demon? i have. in younger days i was trying to overcome and i sought out AA meetings a few times. it didn't take long at all to catch on that i was among a very few in the crowd who was there voluntarily. the rest were attending under court order. it was easy to see these people were frustrated, angry and bored at having to be where they didn't want to be. they were not being helped or saved or rehabilitated. they were being punished.

many of those forced to attend those AA meetings could barely hide their contempt. the result was a near steady background noise of foot tapping, audible sighs of disgust, negative words uttered, finger tapping, you name it. this served to detract from the message and tone of the gathering. the result was AA was a waste of time.

while those forced to attend church services would be in the minority of the attendees they would not detract from the ambience as in those AA meetings i witnessed. but the core affect would remain the same; forced attendance is a waste of time. the road to salvation does not arrive by ramming it down one's throat.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Church or jail?

I was given a similar choice as a child under 10 yrs old who was living in a very abusive home.
Go to church or stay at home and get my a$$ beat.

Every Sunday the church bus would pick me up and take me to church. When it parked, I would get off the bus
and sneak around and hide until everyone went in. I'd spend the time in a fast food restaurant and sneak back on the bus when church let out. I did this knowing full well I would literally get a beating if ever caught. As fearful as I was, I would not step foot in that church. I eventually did get caught and boy, oh boy, did I ever get a beating. If I had to do it all over again, I'd do the exact same thing.

A more appropriate choice might be jail or volunteer for charity work, or clean up along the hi-ways or something
similar.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Domo1

A small-town judge in Alabama is giving non-violent offenders a choice at sentencing: go to jail or go to church. Under a program dubbed "Operation Restore Our Community," the city judge in Bay Minette lets misdemeanor offenders serve time and pay a fine or go to church every Sunday for a year, according to WKRG.com. If offenders choose church, they can pick the place of worship as long as they check in weekly with the pastor and police. After a year of Sundays in the pew, the offender's case will be dismissed.


I've got real mixed feelings on this. I don't think that the State should be making or encouraging people to go to church. Granted, you get to pick the church and it saves a TON of money but something about this just feels wrong. What about the Atheist or Agnostic or...? I suppose I could support this measure if community service or something along those lines were also implemented. There's no sense in locking someone up if they don't pose a danger in my opinion. We waste far too much money incarcerating people that really don't need to be in jail.

What do you guys think? Fair enough or should there be some changes?

Link


Jesus Christ is exactly what these men need. He alone can free them of their desires to commit crimes and make them better people in the process while he saves their souls all at the same time. Theres too much godlessness in the world and thats the problem.


Jesus never freed anyone from anything. People free themselves. The only reason people give credit to Jesus for anything is because they lack confidence in themselves. So whenever they do something they thought they couldn't do they give credit to Jesus. It's all just a matter of confidence and will power.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by Annee
 


You turned it into a question by the "aren't you." But then again, you can state your opinion...fine by me. Where's my scotch??
Why does everyone drink scotch around here? I've heard that often of ATSer's.


Well - Good Morning! I know it comes off that way - - but I intentionally did not put a question mark at the end - - making it a statement - rather then a question. I'm subtle that way


LOL - I drink a shot of scotch in a full 8 oz glass of cold water (no ice). I have a blood sugar issue and my doctor told me "If you are going to drink - drink scotch". The full glass of water is to keep it easier on the body and I drink it in sips. Of course I have to pee a lot



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeQuit acting like this was an attack.


A statement is not acting like I'm being attacked.

There are no emotions on the internet - - you are interpreting.

I've actually seen the documentary on this group. *Sigh* I meant quit giving the appearance of trying to correct me when there was nothing to correct. My bad for mis-phrasing that.

What started this conversation wasn't about what individuals do, but a group of Atheistic folks who met together as a group and thereby did not need a reiteration of the same thing you've said, in 2 separate threads, roughly 3-4 times, all in direct response to me, when only the 1st time, it might have been needed.

Does that compute as less emotional?

And do you get why I'd like you to cut it out? Or do we need a 8-10th round of the same freaking conversation over and over? Especially if even before this time I stated that I agreed with your statement, and that what I reposted in response had nothing to do with you parroting this over and over?



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Screw it. Put them in jail. Waste more taxpayer money because we can't have non-violent offenders anywhere but jail. Separation of church and state PERIOD, no ifs, ands, or buts!

Completely throw out the part where a judge, in today's fascist America, is willing to not put someone in jail for a minor offense. A judge advocating for no jail time. He gives a criminal an actual choice as to the punishment he receives? Where else in America is this happening? Was that nowhere? I thought so.

You people with a grudge against God really need to grow the freak up, get over yourselves, and think about, for just once in your lives, the needs of the many. How many non-violent offenders, people that smoked one joint, a kid that stole a radio, are languishing in jail right now at millions of dollars of taxpayer cost? This is a WIN for taxpayers and for people that don't need to be in prison with real criminals!

/TOA



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


False dichotomy. The issue here is not the existence of alternative punishments for non-violent offenders, but whether they should include attending religious institutions.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by The Old American
 


False dichotomy. The issue here is not the existence of alternative punishments for non-violent offenders, but whether they should include attending religious institutions.


The issue here is that a judge is giving a criminal a choice to go to jail or not. It's a big first step to not put people in jail when they don't need to be. Yet people like you would rather them rot in jail than step foot in a church. Way to go, Mr. Humanitarian.

/TOA



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Screw it. Put them in jail. Waste more taxpayer money because we can't have non-violent offenders anywhere but jail. Separation of church and state PERIOD, no ifs, ands, or buts!

Completely throw out the part where a judge, in today's fascist America, is willing to not put someone in jail for a minor offense. A judge advocating for no jail time. He gives a criminal an actual choice as to the punishment he receives? Where else in America is this happening? Was that nowhere? I thought so.

You people with a grudge against God really need to grow the freak up, get over yourselves, and think about, for just once in your lives, the needs of the many. How many non-violent offenders, people that smoked one joint, a kid that stole a radio, are languishing in jail right now at millions of dollars of taxpayer cost? This is a WIN for taxpayers and for people that don't need to be in prison with real criminals!

/TOA


Nice to see you don't support the separation of church and state. Why didn't he have them go through a rehab program and do community service? At least that way they would be doing some good in the community in which they broke the law. If this judge is allowing to let his religious views to influence his verdicts then he chose the wrong line of work.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by The Old American
Screw it. Put them in jail. Waste more taxpayer money because we can't have non-violent offenders anywhere but jail. Separation of church and state PERIOD, no ifs, ands, or buts!

Completely throw out the part where a judge, in today's fascist America, is willing to not put someone in jail for a minor offense. A judge advocating for no jail time. He gives a criminal an actual choice as to the punishment he receives? Where else in America is this happening? Was that nowhere? I thought so.

You people with a grudge against God really need to grow the freak up, get over yourselves, and think about, for just once in your lives, the needs of the many. How many non-violent offenders, people that smoked one joint, a kid that stole a radio, are languishing in jail right now at millions of dollars of taxpayer cost? This is a WIN for taxpayers and for people that don't need to be in prison with real criminals!

/TOA


Nice to see you don't support the separation of church and state. Why didn't he have them go through a rehab program and do community service? At least that way they would be doing some good in the community in which they broke the law. If this judge is allowing to let his religious views to influence his verdicts then he chose the wrong line of work.


I don't support an opinion piece that Jefferson wrote? It doesn't really matter, as "a wall of separation between church and state" isn't a law. The 1st Amendment, where it says Congress won't make laws favoring or discriminating against religion, is the law. What law was it that this judge was creating again? I missed that in the article.

But, fine. Community service for them. I'm all for it. But since the judge didn't offer that, I can accept his olive branch that is non-harmful to people that don't deserve jail time. Why can't you? You would rather them rot in jail in lieu of any concession? "HOLY CRAP! ANYTHING BUT STEPPING FOOT IN A CHURCH! I'D RATHER BE COVERED IN SCORPIONS!"

Again, this is a step that needs to be taken. Is it the right step? Maybe not, but it's it's sure as crap closer to the right step than imprisonment. Unless of course, you're an atheist. Then it's worse, huh?

/TOA



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





The issue here is that a judge is giving a criminal a choice to go to jail or not.


No, it is not. Again, the issue here is whether punishments should include attending religious institutions. Thats where the controversy is. Whether non-violent criminals should go to jail is not the issue here, and I dont think they should, so stop with the strawmans.


edit on 24/9/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I guess I'll be taking a trip to the penitentiary, If I go to church somebody will be getting hurt and that is a guarantee. I can't take no sanctimonious people in a church.
edit on 24-9-2011 by Heartisblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


well, its punishment either way.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
How about this judge contact some Atheist groups in the area - - - and see if they have any programs or recommendations.

Atheists are becoming more socially involved. I would bet non-religious programs are also available.


If Rasta-man Ganga shaman church gatherings were an option..or satin devil worshiping voodoo daddy church... as long as total freedom of building choice is afforded.. awesome. I still might not have a problem with it if wearing headphones / watching smartphone video / football / being mentally chemically enlightened.. is allowed while being forced to sit.. blocking out whatever dude in the robe has to say is akin to protecting your mind from being raped.

Likely.. his honor has a list of his favorite "approved" mind rapers consisting of established "respected" community cults... in which case, pick your poison: cult recruitment or Bubba.. grape rape or backdoor politics... after school detention, or spankin

Overall, eh.. at least its a choice other than the total failure of jail... not good, but a start.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

And do you get why I'd like you to cut it out? Or do we need a 8-10th round of the same freaking conversation over and over? Especially if even before this time I stated that I agreed with your statement, and that what I reposted in response had nothing to do with you parroting this over and over?


NO.

However you want to twist it - - - the implication in the presentation of your post was negative toward Atheist.

I responded with a simple sentence (paraphrase): Is this like Westboro church are Christian. Did that fly over your head?

You could have ended it there. You left me no choice.

I will post/re-post the simplicity of the meaning of Atheism - - as often as I feel necessary.

edit on 24-9-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
The problem is not that the judge offered church as an alternative.

The problem is he offered only church as an alternative.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 





I guess I'll be taking a trip to the penitentiary, If I go to church somebody will be getting hurt and that is a guarantee. I can't take no sanctimonious people in a church.


I have a real problem with organized religion, and cannot remember the last time I was in church. I don't support churches that preach hate, but I have attended a few that I thought were wonderful. Not all pastors/preachers/congregations are bad. There was a little church near my house in my teens that welcomed everyone with a big emphasis on just loving people. They had multi denominational services every week and there were a ton of gay/lesbian attendees.

I get the aversion towards churches/people that preach hate, or that everyone else is wrong but what about the good ones out there just trying to foster a sense of community among people that believe in God? That seems like a good thing, and in no way worthy of violence.



posted on Sep, 24 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I think that sums up my feelings very well.

I can see church as an alternative, but not the only one. Very well said.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The problem is not that the judge offered church as an alternative.

The problem is he offered only church as an alternative.


I disagree, I believe no religious/atheist institutions should be part of any punishment, not even as a choice. Keep the government totaly out of these things, otherwise separation of church and state is seriously violated.

Whats wrong with "agnostic" community service as a punishment?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join