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: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

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?


I do not see church as a punishment - in this situation (if you are a believer) - - - any differently then I would see self-help groups.

I think you are going too far to be anti-church. Getting back on the "god path" may (and has) helped some people - - if that is their choice to straighten themselves out.

Plus churches do rent/donate space for many self-help groups.

Not allowing alternatives is what makes this judge wrong.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





I do not see church as a punishment - in this situation (if you are a believer) - - - any differently then I would see self-help groups.


Self-help groups are not inherently religious, that is a VERY important difference. The word is clear in the article - a CHURCH, not a support group.




Not allowing alternatives is what makes this judge wrong.


I agree. Even then, I am not a big fan of overly creative punishments or help programs, because they are coerced by government force.

When someone needs such psychological help, "agnostic" support groups or visiting a psychologist is good enough for everyone, without religion entering the picture.
If some of these can be interpreted as including religious support groups, thats pushing it.
And if there is a word "church" in the sentence, it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

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


If I were hurting monetarily, I guess I would give it some thought. Man 1 year of hearing people talk about things I couldn't care less for though would be torture.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Annee
 





I do not see church as a punishment - in this situation (if you are a believer) - - - any differently then I would see self-help groups.


Self-help groups are not inherently religious, that is a VERY important difference. The word is clear in the article - a CHURCH, not a support group.




Not allowing alternatives is what makes this judge wrong.


I agree. Even then, I am not a big fan of overly creative punishments or help programs, because they are coerced by government force.

When someone needs such psychological help, "agnostic" support groups or visiting a psychologist is good enough for everyone, without religion entering the picture.
If some of these can be interpreted as including religious support groups, thats pushing it.
And if there is a word "church" in the sentence, it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.


But - it is not your choice or place to tell someone not to believe in god and church.

Anymore then it is the judge's choice to offer only one option - church.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeNO.
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.
I actually will apologize for this one. You just plain annoyed me, and I let my irritation get to me. There are reasons to reiterate a point over and over, and in fact, I'll wind up having to do the same thing, and likely get someone upset with me. So I am sorry for this.

And boy do I hate when the quote system fails.

But there actually is a good reason why I got irritated with you:

Me:

Hell, most church's of Satan are actually Atheist groups, not actual Satan worshipers, for that matter.
This was all I stated before you:


That doesn't make any sense.

Atheism is lack of belief in a deity.

If they believed in Satan - they would need to believe in God.
I did not call them Satan Worshipers. I called them church's of Satan. There are people that don't believe in Satan's existence that meet under the umbrella of a Church of Satan. I did not state that they believed in Satan at all. You brought this up with a reiteration of what an Atheist is, and what a Satanist cannot be. Your reiteration plain added information I did not give out, and ultimately ended in you stating that I was adding more than what you stated, when you plain did it to me from the beginning of the argument. Now, if I had pointed out in my statement that these people under the umbrella of Satan's Church were not believer's in God, maybe we wouldn't have had this argument. But wait, I did:

Hell, most church's of Satan are actually Atheist groups, not actual Satan worshipers, for that matter.
Most Churches of Satan are ... NOT actual Satan Worshipers. So I had this from the beginning of the whole thing.

At this point, I agreed with your statement:

Of course it doesn't make any sense. It's not about making sense, it's about what is actually done:
To me, like you, it makes far more sense to worship SATAN in the Church of Satan. But the people who meet there claim they don't believe in a Satan.

The Church of Satan does not worship or support a belief in the Devil or other supernatural entities.
a Quote from Wiki, where I'm sure members police their own entry. But in any manner, I agreed with you that it doesn't make sense for Atheists to meet under the title "Church of Satan" because it implies beliefs that they do not have. I NEVER implied this myself, but merely pointed out that while meeting under the term, they're atheistic in outlook. That is all.

Then you

Like the Westboro Church are Christians?

Atheism simply means lack of belief in a deity.

What individuals do beyond that is personal choice.
1. Brought in another fringe group. 2. Repeated yourself in something I agreed with you on, directly in what you were responding to, like you didn't see it at all. And I was agreeing with something you started, which I stayed away from by being as minimal as possible in my first mentioning of it--even stating things in such a way as to hopefully prevent the start of this type of conversation. 3. Then you bring up that the whole of Atheism is not responsible for individual beliefs. The thing is that for those folks to gather together, while not being of exactly the same beliefs, this was about a group of Atheists who get together to mock worshiping for their own amusement and to build social interactions in a supportive community group.

As a response to how "fringe" Church of Satan is, like/not like Westboro:

Up to, maybe beyond. I'm not really sure what their detailed practices are, although I'm sure it's got something to do with Hedonism.
This was simply an I don't know what they should be classified as.

Then I let you get to me:

Quit acting like this was an attack. Seriously. This is a group of people with atheistic beliefs that gather together to do things in common, communally, as an assembly. It's the only one I know of that has an "active worship service"--yes, it's a parody mass--for some jailbound person to get actively involved in. You're the one who said it made no sense, and I agreed that to me, it made no sense.
The thing is you stated:


However you want to twist it - - - the implication in the presentation of your post was negative toward Atheist.
Everything I stated was neutral. YOU read negativity into it. My asking you to stop was NOT because of this 1 direct response, but because of the whole conversation, that was unnecessary because I never stated a thing that disagreed with 1 iota of what you responded with.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslootherwise separation of church and state is seriously violated.
The problem is that "Separation of Church and State" is a fairly recent interpretation of what is actually in the constitution. The law itself is not a total removal of all religion, but the removal of forced religion. Often the total removal is a forcing of what religious practices you can participate in--and that goes against the direct wording of the 1st amendment, irrelevant of interpretation. If we don't want ANY public religion, we'd have to make another amendment. What this ideology of "Separation of Church and State" often winds up doing is it interferes with personal expression of religion, and then ties the hand of those who dissent with a "you don't have the right to dissent on this, so we're ignoring you" without looking at where the boundary is supposed to be.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





But - it is not your choice or place to tell someone not to believe in god and church. Anymore then it is the judge's choice to offer only one option - church.


When it comes to government job such as being a judge, then yes, he should conduct it as an "agnostic" would, even if he believes or does not believe in god. Judge can tell the criminal whatever he wants in private, he may give him advice to visit any religious place. But making it part of the sentence coerced by government power (go to a religious place or else, payed for by agnostic and antitheist taxpayers, too) is not acceptable.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 





The law itself is not a total removal of all religion, but the removal of forced religion.


Attending a church as a part of the sentence is clearly forced.

"go to jail or go to church"



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 





The law itself is not a total removal of all religion, but the removal of forced religion.


Attending a church as a part of the sentence is clearly forced.

"go to jail or go to church"
I didn't say it wasn't....although I did point out earlier that not all things that go by the name "Church" have anything to do with Christianity. Associations are known for organizing a church so that they can get non-profit benefits without having to do a thing to be worth calling them a non-profit--and this is across all beliefs.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 





The law itself is not a total removal of all religion, but the removal of forced religion.


Attending a church as a part of the sentence is clearly forced.

"go to jail or go to church"


You really need to look beyond your focus - - and hate of church.

Have you not read anything - others have written?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel - - Me: Hell, most church's of Satan are actually Atheist groups, not actual Satan worshipers, for that matter. This was all I stated before you:


So you are up on your studies of Satan groups?

You can not be Atheist if you believe in Satan. That's a fact. Satan and God - - are like the Ying and Yang. One does not exist without the other. Lack of belief in a deity would also be lack of belief in Satan.

Then you point out they only call themselves the Church of Satan (or whatever) - - but don't really believe in Satan. Its just a "joke" name - - for their belief in Hedonism.

How ever you think you presented it - - - - there was zero reason to bring this particular group into this discussion.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join