Kentucky man sentenced to attend church

Just cam across this, not sure if this is the correct forum, but I think this is wild. Kind of wonder, though, the legality of such a sentence. Then again, the courts gave the guy a choice. . .so I'm not sure. Just wondering what others thought of this.

Source

reply to post by Divine Strake


Better than jail....

reply to post by Divine Strake


Explanation: S&F!

Every man must pick his own medicinal poison!

This young foolish irresponsible delinquent of man [dare I call him that as a boys brain isn't set fully mature by the forces of mother nature until he is the age of 25yrs old ] has picked his own medicinal poison ... let him drink deeply of it and may it cure all his criminal ailments asap! Amen!

And I praise the judge for giving the man a choice and I praise the young man for choosing, hopefully, a higher path to becoming a true gentleman and fuller, finer upstanding and more resposible citizen of the wider community during and after serving his sentence humbly and contritely.

Many others have be shot, hung or killed by other means for less throughout history!

BUT I would have sentenced him also to mandatory guitar lessons 3 x per week during the same durational period and at the end of the sentence he must play his best for me and the wider community!

Personal Disclosure: He could also be made to learn and help with church security going forward ... because if you F#ck It! ... well You Fix It!!

Praise Be To God And Justice Tempered By Mercy!

reply to post by Divine Strake


How is that fair to the church? Do they really want their beliefs forced on someone by legal mandate? And what if this man had stolen from a Jewish synagogue, or another religion's house of worship? Would the obviously Christian judge FORCE someone to go to this non-Christian church and attend services?

It's absurd.

And probably illegal, to boot.

reply to post by Divine Strake


That reminds me of an incident i heard about years ago........

A young adult was blaring his car stereo through town and was cited for it. He appeared in court, and the judgr gave him 2 options...... pay a hefty fine, or commit to a "rehabilitation" session, left to the judges descretion....

The man opted for the rehab, and the judge ordered him placed in a room for 8 hours while Michael Bolton was played on a stereo, turned up quite loud..... im going to try and find the source really quick, ill be back


EDIT: Cant find it online to save my life, its an old story though

reply to post by JustSlowlyBackAway


Explanation: He only has to attend!

He is NOT forced to believe at all ... and he himself agreed to this sentence!

Personal Disclosure: Do you have any issues with the victims [aka the church he robbed] and or their religion?

Methinks you should be focusing more on this wayward young mans actions and less on the victims belief system. :shk:

What would you have sentenced this young man to?

Allahu Ackbar!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Divine Strake


A state court can do this because the rule of establishing a religion only applies to the Federal government. At the time of our founding, states had their own established religions, and it was well within their 10th amendment right to do so. For example, Maryland could say that they are officially a Protestant or Christian state, and some states even charged a small tax to support it. This isn't to say that a non-Christian wouldn't be welcome there, because they were. Fast forward to today and this is unheard of, and the all powerful, yet VERY wrong revisionist history cliche of "separation of church and state" is often heard when the idea of government and religion come up. The idea of "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution, and if it were it would only apply to the Federal Government.

I wonder what would happen if a christian was made to attend a mosque or some atheist gathering?

Originally posted by JustSlowlyBackAway
reply to post by Divine Strake

 

How is that fair to the church? Do they really want their beliefs forced on someone by legal mandate? And what if this man had stolen from a Jewish synagogue, or another religion's house of worship? Would the obviously Christian judge FORCE someone to go to this non-Christian church and attend services?

It's absurd.

And probably illegal, to boot.

My guess is, this was an agreement all parties reached before the Judge made it official. It just sounds nicer to some the way the Judge says it.

Forcing someone to go to church against their religious beliefs is good. A strong Islamic government in Iran is bad.

Gotta love the US Hypocrisy.