Go to Church or Go to jail...

[CallMeJoe]

The difference dummy is that the people aren't sentenced to buy health insurance. Here you have people that are already sentence to go to jail, and being given a choice to do what they are already sentenced to, or go to church instead.

It's still religious coercion by the government, just coercion of a limited group.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's still religious coercion by the government, just coercion of a smaller class.

It's not coercion because you could just go to jail like before. Kind of like in basic, we could have gone to church on Sunday, or cleaned the barracks, some of us cleaned the barracks, guess what would have been going on if church hadn't existed ...that's right, barracks cleaning.

 

[sactoking]

It's not coercion because you could just go to jail like before. Kind of like in basic, we could have gone to church on Sunday, or cleaned the barracks, some of us cleaned the barracks, guess what would have been going on if church hadn't existed ...that's right, barracks cleaning.

Actually, it's pretty much the textbook definition of coercion. The reason that jail is (allegedly) a deterrent is that society as a whole deems it a place to avoid. If you tell someone "Shoplift and you will go to jail or to church" not only have you coerced them into going to church, since the threat of jail is an intimidation tactic, but you've also reduced the efficacy of jail as an alleged deterrent since everyone will mentally remove it from the equation ("Shoplift and you will go to church").

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Is this judge really competent enough to continue serving as a judge? Shouldn't judges be required to have some sort of basic knowledge of U.S. Constitutional Law?

 

[JSt0rm]

he is an activist judge.

 

[theeedude]

As an atheist, I'd rather go to church and hit on gullible religious chicks than get hit on by dudes in jail

 

[sactoking]

As an atheist, I'd rather go to church and hit on gullible religious chicks than get hit on by dudes in jail

I don't know, I've only been to church one day in my life and it was one of the most boring, mind-numbing experiences of my life. Admittedly, I was only 5 at the time and had the attention span of a 5yo, but still not something I'd want to repeat.

 

[bfdd]

Maybe there is money to be made in starting a "church" around there. So people can get out of petty crimes for a small "donation".

 

[Kadarin]

I'm sure the judge involved would be perfectly ok with an offender attending pagan/wiccan services (or any church that does not recognize Christianity or even follow monotheistic principles).

 

[halik]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/26/go-to-church-or-go-to-jail-alabama-rejects-the-constitution/



The chief of police responded with:



I love how they delusionally think that this isn't effected by the separation of church and state. Thankfully the program is put on hold now.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/church-jail-alabama-puts-alternative-incarceration-hold/story?id=14616349

Alabama... I'm sure they would be ok with me going to a mosque or some pagan rite instead of jail, right?

 

[I Saw OJ]

The Church of Fudge would be my first choice.

 

[xj0hnx]

Actually, it's pretty much the textbook definition of coercion.

So they are coercing them to what? Not go to jail? How diabolical.

 

[halik]

So they are coercing them to what? Not go to jail? How diabolical.

Coercing them to go to church? You may be imune to logic:

People don't voluntarily go to jail
People voluntarily go to church

By giving someone an option to go a place that's not as bad as jail, you're coercing them to do so. I'm sure you'd support it just as well if the option was either go to jail or go to skeptics assoc meetings every sunday.

 

[Ns1]

i would go to church and then after a year commit a crime because the power of christ compelled me.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/26/go-to-church-or-go-to-jail-alabama-rejects-the-constitution/



The chief of police responded with:



I love how they delusionally think that this isn't effected by the separation of church and state. Thankfully the program is put on hold now.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/church-jail-alabama-puts-alternative-incarceration-hold/story?id=14616349

I *want* separation of church and state.

But the fact is, the constitution has no guarantee of 'separation of church and state', it has only a prohibition of the government 'establishing a state religion'.

The founding fathers saw the European history of Protestant and Catholic kings having the 'national religion' change with them, and those politics dominate the countries and cause civil wars. The very history of the colonies was of people on the wrong side of 'state religion' fleeing to the colonies. They did not want the US to copy that.

But they were a lot more comfortable with 'religion' as part of government - just not an 'official' religion leading to persecution - than many would like today.

The constitution doesn't mention a role for religion, but their speech at the time has a lot of references. 'Atheism' wasn't a very large issue of the day.

'Wall between church and state' was only in a letter from one of the less religious founders.

A program like this doesn't come close to the government 'establishing a state religion' as the constitution forbids. Opposition to it has to come simply from elections.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it's a great idea. The kind of people that go to church are just the ones to lynch criminals at the drop of a hat. Get rid of the fuckers and keep the assholes occupied and maybe out of politics.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

LOL, America.

 

[1prophet]

I *want* separation of church and state.

But the fact is, the constitution has no guarantee of 'separation of church and state', it has only a prohibition of the government 'establishing a state religion'.

The founding fathers saw the European history of Protestant and Catholic kings having the 'national religion' change with them, and those politics dominate the countries and cause civil wars. The very history of the colonies was of people on the wrong side of 'state religion' fleeing to the colonies. They did not want the US to copy that.

But they were a lot more comfortable with 'religion' as part of government - just not an 'official' religion leading to persecution - than many would like today.

The constitution doesn't mention a role for religion, but their speech at the time has a lot of references. 'Atheism' wasn't a very large issue of the day.

'Wall between church and state' was only in a letter from one of the less religious founders.

A program like this doesn't come close to the government 'establishing a state religion' as the constitution forbids. Opposition to it has to come simply from elections.

The Establishment Clause as spelled out by Justice Hugo Black in effect is a separation of religion from state.

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

 

[Phokus]

Some of the offenders should choose the Church of Satan just to troll the courts

 

[Craig234]

The Establishment Clause as spelled out by Justice Hugo Black in effect is a separation of religion from state.

The court has expanded the language at times a bit beyond what I think it says; other times, not so much. Unfortunately, the very sort of corruption we'd like not to see seems to have had the door opened with Bush's 'faith-based programs office'. Fundamentalist sects were important to Republican politics; in return, taxpayer dollars were made available to pay to these sects, as determined by the White House office and political appointees, for 'providing services' rather than the government doing so.

In principle, that could add up to a fortune of money, quite corruptly administered, greatly strengthening the finances of the churches selected.

Probably the most relevant founding father on the issue was James Madison. While the language was limited IMO, he had a strong preference for the 'separation'.

However, it's interesting to note that some of that seemed to be based on the policy increasing the strength of religion, rather than simply protecting people from coercion.

He commented that 'it can't be denied that religion in Virginia is now more fervently followed after the end of state sponsorship'; elsewhere, he wrote:

Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion

So, the argument is, 'separation of church and state is good, proven by the fact that the religion in particular that was official, is even stronger when not state sponsored.'

When the first amendment was adopted, some states even still had 'official religions', though times have changed culturally and legally on that.

This is yet another of those issues that might seem to have a clear answer - 'keep those hicks from mixing government and church' - but has two sides.

What if a non-religious setting were offered as well as church settings?

If I were voting on the issue as a citizen, I'd lean towards 'better to keep them separate and not do this, despite potential benefits of helping to reduce crime at less taxpayer expense and needless suffering and harm of people in jail.' I'm all for those goals, but despite what many would see as the 'common sense' of using already existing institutions, I'd rather another approach were used - like government counselors or classes. But as to whether this violates the establishment clause, it's not so clear to me that it does, though that case could be argued from precedents like the Black quote you quoted.

 

[MovingTarget]

Although a decent and well-intentioned idea, it is ripe for abuse and makes the church/state bond a little too fuzzy. If they were assisting the churches' community service programs (soup kitchen, neighborhood cleanup, etc.) as opposed to church services, I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

I wonder if the Judge gives the option of going across the bay to Mobile for services of the jewish, eastern orthodox, seventh day adventist, jehovah's witness, or uniterian universalist, or other communities? Its only a 30min drive, IIRC.

 

[Craig234]

Although a decent and well-intentioned idea, it is ripe for abuse and makes the church/state bond a little too fuzzy. If they were assisting the churches' community service programs (soup kitchen, neighborhood cleanup, etc.) as opposed to church services, I really wouldn't have a problem with it.

This is a slippery slope, though.

Isn't educating our children a service the churches could take over? What if they offered to replace welfar with a value-added service from the church?

Prison rehabilitation, community policing, there are countless things that could be called services that the government could then justify contracting to churches for billions.

 

[xj0hnx]

Coercing them to go to church? You may be imune to logic:

People don't voluntarily go to jail
People voluntarily go to church

By giving someone an option to go a place that's not as bad as jail, you're coercing them to do so. I'm sure you'd support it just as well if the option was either go to jail or go to skeptics assoc meetings every sunday.

You may be immune to reality, people don't go to to church to escape incarceration, sending would be prisoners to church instead of jail isn't going to magically make them religious, and if it does ...so fucking what? A former criminal gets religion, and stops committing crimes? Oh, the horror, the inhumanity, where will it end? it is just another way for criminals to get out of being punished. IMHO, this whole idea is stupid, and will be used as a way for criminals to avoid jail, but it isn't a violation of church and state. And no, I wouldn't care if they choose islame, buddism, satanism, or chistianity, I am an atheist, but am not scared of religion, I just think it's for the weak minded.

 

[JSt0rm]

A former criminal gets religion, and stops committing crimes?

Are there any studies that show this to be true?

 

[IAteYourMother]

So they are coercing them to what? Not go to jail? How diabolical.

It's still giving preference to religion... a more fair law would be to give them the option of certain designated community functions, going to church being one of those options.

It's like offering drug trials to prisoners for earlier release. Sure, it might help them, but there are ethical issues involved when the person is incarcerated.