Fire these fucking judges already.

[KidCharlemagne]

I can't take this shit anymore. My kingdom for a little separation of Cult and State!

Judge Gives Offenders Option of Church

A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab...

Full Story:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/sentenced_to_church

[Lord Ashtar]

Interesting. So which denomination is he forcing them to go to?

[Giraffe]

Well, he does just say they have to go to "worship services". I wonder if worshipping Satan counts?

[Kimstu]

Laff o' the day:

A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab — a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.


I'm not sure about the "mandatory" part, but does this judge seriously think that saying "worship services" instead of "church" helps defuse the constitutional question here? Yes kiddies, it doesn't count as government entanglement with religion if you don't actually say the word "church"! Bozo.

[Eleusis]

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.

Alternative sentencing is popular across the country — ordering vandals to repaint a graffiti-covered wall, for example. But legal experts said they didn't know of any other judges who give the option of attending church.
I'd pick the Church of Satan.

But seriously, haven't judges been sending people to AA for years? And isn't that heavily indoctrinated with Christian rhetoric?

[FinnAgain]

I wonder if a devival would count...

[DoctorJ]

One's options for a worship service in London, KY would be limited. When I interviewed for a job in a nearby town, the person showing me around said (totally unironically) that the local churches included "all your basic varieties of Baptist". (I think there was a Catholic church around somewhere, but that's as far out as it gets.)

I strongly disagree with judges sending people to AA, and I disagree just as strongly with this. Going to church (or a 12-step program) is a decision that one should make on one's own, and the government shouldn't be doing anything to encourage or discourage it.

[Weirddave]

I'd pick the Church of Satan.

But seriously, haven't judges been sending people to AA for years? And isn't that heavily indoctrinated with Christian rhetoric?
Yes, but I would classify it as having more of a Theistic bent, rather than calling it Christian rhetoric. The difference in my mind is that AA works for a lot of people. I've seen no evidence that going to church is in any way an effective method of rehab.

[Revtim]

It's also funny how he says "it's not mandatory". Yeah, as long as you don't mind going to jail or rehab. I guess no law in the country makes anything mandatory, since you also have the option of going to jail instead.

[Bricker]

Yes, but I would classify it as having more of a Theistic bent, rather than calling it Christian rhetoric. The difference in my mind is that AA works for a lot of people. I've seen no evidence that going to church is in any way an effective method of rehab.

How does that affect the determination of whether the practice violates constitutional guidelines for separation of church and state?

[Boggette]

But seriously, haven't judges been sending people to AA for years? And isn't that heavily indoctrinated with Christian rhetoric?

Kinda. You aren't required to be Christian. You are encouraged to believe that a power greater than yourself can help you get clean. Your higher power can be the chair you sit on, if that's what you want to call it. There are, however, many many Christians in AA who bring up Jesus on a regular basis. I've even been to meetings* where you get "praisers" who cry out Hallolooyas every few minutes.

Most people in AA are also upset about the judges requiring people to go to meetings. This is supposed to be a volunteer group for people who WANT to get sober. Forcing someone to be there who doesn't want to can 'taint' the meeting. I've even seen some people go back to drinking when invited by one of these guys after a meeting.

I'd ask this judge if making a prayer bench in my back yard and going to "worship services" there is good enough! The Church of The Bitching Boggette is open for business! Members welcome.

*Ten years as of 4/9/2005! Woo Hoo!

[KidCharlemagne]

Christ would I love to hear someone ask him if the Church of Satan was applicable. I'd be curious to know if he has to "approve" what constitutes "worship."

[Mtgman]

I'd pick the Church of Satan.

But seriously, haven't judges been sending people to AA for years? And isn't that heavily indoctrinated with Christian rhetoric?
According to A Brief Guide to AA (http://www.aa.org/default/en_pdfs/p-42_abriefguidetoaa.pdf)(PDF), page 10. 3. A.A. is not a religious organization. All members
are free to decide on their own personal
ideas about the meaning of life.Whether this is objectively true since so much of it is obviously drawn from religious doctrine or not is a matter of judgement. Still it is cleary different from "worship services" which are explicitly religious.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Mr. Moto]

I think having this be a condition of the sentence is troubling. It would be far more proper if the option were given to the offender to attend religious instruction as part of his sentence if he were so inclined. This could be done in a correctional facility or as part of a probationary period.

The Texas Department of Corrections, in its Sugar Land facility, has cut down on recidivism significantly using a religious mentoring project that inmates enter voluntarily. This causes no constitutional problems to me (in fact, it facilitates the free exercise of religion of inmates) and is successful to boot.

[Typo Negative]

I see people 'sentenced' to atend AA or NA meetings all the time. They very rarely stick around. California now puts first time drug offenders in treatment rather than jail (Prop 36).

While I think that putting first time drug offenders (or some drug offenders period) in jail makes no sense, I belive Doctor J is right. Sentencing people to treatment doesn't work very well. I think sentencing people to church will have an even worse success rate.

One 12 step program expression is "it's not for those who need it, it's not for those who deserve it, it's only for those who want it."

[FinnAgain]

I'd still be troubled by that, Mr. Moto. And simply as a tangent, from what I recall Leary had reduced recidivism quite a bit when he used LSD (or was it psylocybin?) in treatment.

[wring]

AA refers to a "Higher POwer", and FME, specifically tries in practice to segregate itself from any sort of "theism" by saying to folks that they can use the group itself as a "higher power". Key, I suspect, is to get the person to relinquish thoughts of self control, (saying "I have no control over alcohol and it's power over me, therefore attempts at controlling my drinking are doomed". FME, YMMV etc.

Treatment vs. jail is IMHO, a very acceptable alternative since treatment options have the possability of attacking the root cause of the criminal behavior.

wrt church vs. treatment. I have actually seen some folks get the same sort of "help" as it were from church groups that they would get from treatment. Not meant to be anything more than anecdotal in nature. In addition, with the new trends towards governmental funding of "Faith based, community organization" programs, be prepared for an upswing in faith based treatment programs.

Not saying I agree w/the judge, just that it's not as uncommon or off the beaten path as some might believe.

[Weirddave]

How does that affect the determination of whether the practice violates constitutional guidelines for separation of church and state?
Because AA isn't a church or even a religious orgainization?

[Hamlet]

A judge in Louisinia, Judge Thomas P. Quirk, had sentenced about 540 people to probation, with a condition of probation being that they must attend the church service of their own choosing. He later changed it up a bit and only sentenced those who requested to be sentenced thusly, and did allow those 540 an option to be resentenced. The Judicial Commission took a look at his actions and found that the church sentences clearly violated the First Amendment. The Judge appealled and the court found that: Although Judge Quirk's sentences may, or may not, ultimately be found unconstitutional, either in an appeal of one of his own sentences or in a case in a jurisdiction binding on Judge Quirk involving other parties, at the time the sentences were rendered, they were not clearly illegal under the law. That the Judiciary Commission and Judge Quirk have a difference of opinion as to how the existing Establishment Clause jurisprudence should be interpreted does not and should not constitute a finding of judicial misconduct by Judge Quirk.

The Court seemed to be saying that, although there are cases that say it is a violation of the Establishment clause, it is not judicial misconduct to sentence people in that matter. However, it may not be "judicial misconduct", I think it is clear that, unless the condition allows for a non-religious alternative also, it violates the Establishment Clause.

You can also look at Warner v. Orange County Probation, where the 2nd Circuit Federal Court of Appeals held that a condition of probation that required attendance at A.A. violated the Establishment Clause.

[D_Odds]

*Ten years as of 4/9/2005! Woo Hoo!

Here's a Hallolooya to The Church of The Bitching Boggette, and a good-on-ya to boot.

[CynicalGabe]

I think that for alcohol related offenses they should be made to bow before the porcelain throne.

[Bricker]

Because AA isn't a church or even a religious orgainization?

I'm no expert on AA, but as I understand it, step 3 of their "12 Steps" is:

Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

Of course, "as we understood Him," suggests a very generalized faith, but I think it's fair to call a statement like that theist in nature.

Put another way, would it be appropriate for a public school to mandate a moment of contemplation every morning for "...God as we understand Him?"

[wring]

Bricker the "as we understand Him" is indeed the wriggle room. Some, as I say, use the group as the "Higher Power" as it were.

[Weirddave]

I'm no expert on AA, but as I understand it, step 3 of their "12 Steps" is:



Of course, "as we understood Him," suggests a very generalized faith, but I think it's fair to call a statement like that theist in nature.


Good point. I wonder if it's been made before?

Yes, but I would classify it as having more of a Theistic bent

:D

Since AA only recognizes a "higher power", defined however the individual wishes to define it for him/herself, I am not sure that that makes them a de facto religious organization, and thus subject to the SOCAS. It's certainly a lot different than sentencing an inmate to church.

[pravnik]

It's "ceremonial deism." :D

[Mtgman]

Thanks for the cite to Warner v Orange County Department of Probations, Hamlet. According to the case documents on Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=957055&exact=1)The A.A. program to which Warner was exposed had a substantial religious component. Participants were told to pray to God for help in overcoming their affliction. Meetings opened and closed with group prayer. The trial judge reasonably found that it "placed a heavy emphasis on spirituality and prayer, in both conception and in practice." We have no doubt that the meetings Warner attended were intensely religious events.So it would seem the court found that AA was sufficiently religious to offend the establishment clause if attendance were a mandatory penalty. Given this info and the ability to choose between punishments the judge in the OP is offering I would expect the judge in this case is not violating the establishment clause either.

Enjoy,
Steven

[askeptic]

I'm no expert on AA, but as I understand it, step 3 of their "12 Steps" is:



Of course, "as we understood Him," suggests a very generalized faith, but I think it's fair to call a statement like that theist in nature.

Put another way, would it be appropriate for a public school to mandate a moment of contemplation every morning for "...God as we understand Him?"


Sheesh, Bricker. Forget "Undue entanglement" much? Judges can and do impose all kinds of conditions. For example often a person charged with DUI is ordered not to enter any place where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Not convicted, charged. The person can say screw that and choose confinement or bail. The same with the sentencing condition. The person can say screw it and choose the jail time. The judge is not ordering them to worship.

This is not the same as school prayer. AND YOU FUCKING KNOW IT!

[MsRobyn]

Because AA isn't a church or even a religious orgainization?

AA itself may not be, but groups and individuals can and do take on a religious flavor. I went to one meeting where the Serenity Prayer and the Lord's Prayer were both ended with "in Jesus' name, we pray", and the people sharing might've been giving testimony in church, because it was "Jesus" this and "God" that. I wish I could say that these were a few individuals, but I can't. The group conscience had decided that they wanted a "Christian-emphasis" meeting. After the meeting, people wanted to know where I went to church, and had I taken Jesus as my personal lord and savior. Some went so far as to tell me that, if I didn't accept Jesus, I'd never stay sober. (Over 12 years later, I'm still sober. Some of these people relapsed.) Because the meeting listing said nothing about it being "Christian emphasis", I called the Central Office and suggested that this group change its directory listing to reflect that. I don't know what happened; I never went back to that meeting. And this wasn't some town in the Bible Belt, it was in West Los Angeles.

I wish I could claim that this group was an aberration, but I don't think I can, because I've been to similar meetings since.

One of the communities I belong to on LJ is for people who are sober without AA. One common theme is people who are turned off because of the emphasis on religion. As a Jew, I can understand where they're coming from. It's damned uncomfortable to hear people "testifying" about all the good that Jesus has done for them in their sobriety, and to hear group prayers that would be more appropriate in a church service.

Look. I'm not anti-Christian, and whatever works for these people is what they should do. But there is a fuzzy line between spirituality and religion, and too many people think that their religion should be my religion, which takes away from my experience of recovery.

Robin

[rjung]

I wonder if a Buddhist or Shinto temple would count as "worship services" to the judge.

[Hamlet]

Sheesh, Bricker. Forget "Undue entanglement" much?Why the hostility so quickly? Bricker kick your dog or something? It usually takes Bricker at least 4 or posts before he gets under my skin.

Judges can and do impose all kinds of conditions. For example often a person charged with DUI is ordered not to enter any place where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Not convicted, charged. The person can say screw that and choose confinement or bail. The same with the sentencing condition. The person can say screw it and choose the jail time. The judge is not ordering them to worship. Doesn't always matter. Unless the probationer (or potential parolee) has a non-religious option available also, requiring them to go to a religious session violates the Establishment Clause. Saying that, since the person can opt for jail time instead of probation, there is no problem, is just plain wrong.

This is not the same as school prayer. AND YOU FUCKING KNOW IT!I would guess that, indeed, Bricker can tell the difference between school prayer and conditions of probation. I would also guess that Bricker can follow an argument by analogy, or he could apply the proper constitutional test to a fact situation also. How's about you?

[AskNott]

What it amounts to is church-goers get lighter sentences. Pagans and atheists are treated more harshly. In London, KY, that probably goes for Muslims and Jews, too.

For those who are not offended, what if the judge were a pagan, and sentenced Christians to attend Wiccan services? Would that be OK?

[Liberal]

I agree with the complaints. I'm not sure it's much of an issue in London, KY, though. It has 2,653 men, 96% of whom are white. The chances that there's a pagan or atheist among the criminal element is rather slim. But still, yeah, wrong is wrong, and this is wrong.

[Miller]

It has 2,653 men, 96% of whom are white. The chances that there's a pagan or atheist among the criminal element is rather slim.

Eh? What does their race have to do with it?

[Liberal]

Eh? What does their race have to do with it?WASPs.

[askeptic]

WASPs.


WTF? Now you are saying white=WASP? No white atheists or Pagans? :smack:

[Guinastasia]

WASPs.

So whites can't be non-Christian, or even just Catholic?

[DoctorJ]

This is roughly my (native) neck of the woods, and I'm willing to say that the pagans, "out" atheists, and non-Christians in general in the entirety of Laurel County, save for a few high schoolers dabbling briefly to shock their parents, could be counted on one hand.

By and large, these are people who believe that "freedom of religion" means that you can choose to go to the Baptist church or the Methodist church. Going to church is just what good people do.

Your higher power can be the chair you sit on, if that's what you want to call it.
I've heard stuff like this about AA for years, and it has never gotten any less stupid. The chair that you sit on? Who could possibly think that the chair that you sit on could be a force capable of helping you stop drinking? Or any of the other things that people say you can use as your "higher power" in an attempt to cast AA as something other than a religious organization?

AA requires a belief that some power outside of you is the only thing that can help you stop drinking. It can't be something inside of you. I guess it could be your friends and family, but if that's the case, why use examples like the chair?

I went to a meeting as a medical student. It could not be described as anything other than a religious meeting. Half the people there were lined up after the meeting so that the facilitator could sign their court papers. I think it made the opposite point that it was supposed to make--I was very down on the organization afterwards. I still recommend it to some people, because I often don't know what else to do, and for some people it can be a good place to start. But I don't recommend it to everybody, and I am strongly against anyone being forced to go there.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sheesh, Bricker. Forget "Undue entanglement" much? Judges can and do impose all kinds of conditions. For example often a person charged with DUI is ordered not to enter any place where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Not convicted, charged. The person can say screw that and choose confinement or bail. The same with the sentencing condition. The person can say screw it and choose the jail time. The judge is not ordering them to worship.

This is not the same as school prayer. AND YOU FUCKING KNOW IT!
I have to confess that I don't understand where your anger is coming from here. I read Bricker's post simply as using a public school perspective as an analogy to argue that AA is a theistic organization (a separate point from whether it's constitutional for judges offer it as a sentencing option). What am I missing?

[Siege]

A former friend of mine is a Wiccan who's very big on AA and similar programs. The ones she went to regularly actually were pagan and/or Wiccan, rather than Christian, and this was in southwest Pennsylvania. She even led AA meetings at a gathering I was running a few years ago, and I can assure you the higher power she was invoking wasn't Jesus Christ. In my limited, second-hand experience, AA doesn't have to be Christian-oriented, although I can see how individual groups could easily tilt that way, especially in parts of the country where it tends not to occur to people that someone might not be a Christian.

This judge boggles my mind! Look, I'm a devout Christian who's been through my share of troubles and I do credit God with making it possible for me to get through the worst of them. On the other hand, if going to church alone would have solved my problems, I wouldn't have wound up in the whole mess in the first place! How is dragging one's self to church and sleeping through a sermon supposed to cure a serious problem? Has the judge got some personal hotline to Jesus where he can arrange for a miracle cure for each addict who goes to church to get out of jail or rehab, including the ones who are thinking, "Hmmm. Seems like a pretty good scam to me!" Let me see. I have a choice between giving up my freedom, giving up something I enjoy doing, or giving up a few hours on Sunday. It's not really a hard choice, is it, especially if you don't want to give up drugs, alcohol, or crime?

Let me see. Christ said to love God with all your mind. Seems to me this is pretty obviously a sin, but this sentencing policy is incredibly stupid!

CJ

[Liberal]

WTF? Now you are saying white=WASP? No white atheists or Pagans? :smack:No, I'm saying that there are likely only a few, if any, among the criminals in Bumfuck, Kentucky, with two thousand men. Damn, when you people find something to cry about, you turn that Offense-O-Meter all the way up and just alienate whoever the hell passes by. Screw you. And Guin, too. Maybe the judge isn't wrong after all.

[Eleusis]

Let me see. I have a choice between giving up my freedom, giving up something I enjoy doing, or giving up a few hours on Sunday. It's not really a hard choice, is it, especially if you don't want to give up drugs, alcohol, or crime?
Well... when you put it like that....

[Muffin]

Liberal, until you can show how skin colour is relevant to the matter, you should not say “screw you” to those who call you on it. Perhaps a program, be it faith based or not, might help you deal with your problem.

[cosmosdan]

A former friend of mine is a Wiccan who's very big on AA and similar programs. The ones she went to regularly actually were pagan and/or Wiccan, rather than Christian, and this was in southwest Pennsylvania. She even led AA meetings at a gathering I was running a few years ago, and I can assure you the higher power she was invoking wasn't Jesus Christ. In my limited, second-hand experience, AA doesn't have to be Christian-oriented, although I can see how individual groups could easily tilt that way, especially in parts of the country where it tends not to occur to people that someone might not be a Christian. I've been to a few AA meetings myself that were faitly nuetral. A higher power was mentioned in a fairly diestic way. It makes sense that they would vary from area to area. Personnally I think AA meetings should focus on rehab and try to remain more nuetral. If you want to have a Christian AA meeting make it make it a seperate one. Let's not alienate people who might be looking for help by forceing a specific religion down their throats.
This judge boggles my mind! Look, I'm a devout Christian who's been through my share of troubles and I do credit God with making it possible for me to get through the worst of them. On the other hand, if going to church alone would have solved my problems, I wouldn't have wound up in the whole mess in the first place! How is dragging one's self to church and sleeping through a sermon supposed to cure a serious problem? Has the judge got some personal hotline to Jesus where he can arrange for a miracle cure for each addict who goes to church to get out of jail or rehab, including the ones who are thinking, "Hmmm. Seems like a pretty good scam to me!" Let me see. I have a choice between giving up my freedom, giving up something I enjoy doing, or giving up a few hours on Sunday. It's not really a hard choice, is it, especially if you don't want to give up drugs, alcohol, or crime?
I see a lot of people bitching here about this judge buut not one of you has offered any kind of alternative solution. Get real!! No system is perfect. We need to explore alternatives because the system we have isn't working to great. If the judge is giving them a choice, rather than make church service manditory, I see no problem. It won't work for everybody. It might work for some. There are no gaurentees with any program. How many people does it have to help before it's better than the "solutions" we have now? As long as the judge lets them choose within reasonable choices its okay. It does not clearly violate seperation of church and state.
Let me see. Christ said to love God with all your mind. Seems to me this is pretty obviously a sin, but this sentencing policy is incredibly stupid!
What does this mean? Whats the sin you're referring to?

[cosmosdan]

Liberal, until you can show how skin colour is relevant to the matter, you should not say “screw you” to those who call you on it. Perhaps a program, be it faith based or not, might help you deal with your problem.
Try reading his post again. He didn't say race had anything to do with it. He was making an observation that in that part of the country many more people are white Christians. It's a statistic, not a racial comment.

In addition to my preivious post let me say that I agree with the poster who asked if attending services of other religions was okay. If the judge was pushing his own religion that would be unethical. The offendor should be able to choose Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever service they choose. I can see that wrinkle leading to some serious issues in some areas.

[treis]

Eh? It looks to me that he did say race had something to do with it:

I'm not sure it's much of an issue in London, KY, though. It has 2,653 men, 96% of whom are white. The chances that there's a pagan or atheist among the criminal element is rather slim

On prodding he gives the explanation of WASPs. Certainly seems to me that he is using race as a judge but I may be mistaken. If in fact he is doing so, IIRC, white would actually mean that there is a higher chance of a person being an atheist.

[Lord Ashtar]

Has the judge got some personal hotline to Jesus where he can arrange for a miracle cure for each addict who goes to church to get out of jail or rehab, including the ones who are thinking, "Hmmm. Seems like a pretty good scam to me!"
Maybe he just plans to give him some Miracle Spring Water (http://www.peterpopoff.org/).

[cosmosdan]

Eh? It looks to me that he did say race had something to do with it:

It's a statistic, not a racial comment.

the suggestion was made in the post just before Libs that judgement might be more harsh for pagens or muslims, Jews or atheists. Liberal correctly pointed out that that probably isn't much of an issue in that part of the country because of the high ratio of WASPs per capita. The fact that in that part of the country a Pagan, Muslim Jew or Atheist might be the acception to the rule is a statistic. You may believe he is incorrect in that statistic but he definately did not imply in any way that whites can't be atheists or pagens as other posters implied.
He also commented that he agreed with the objections in the same post, yet people didn't hesitate to pull part of his reply out of context and jump all over it.

[vibrotronica]

A good friend of mine worked as a drug councelor for a few years. He told me about one court-ordered client who was a hardcore atheist. He wouldn't admit to any higher power at all, so my friend did what he usually did in these situations: he tried to substitute "something you love dearly" for "higher power". The only thing the client would admit to loving dearly was a good cheese sandwich, so they tried to use the platonic ideal of the cheese sandwich as the higher power.

Needless to say, it didn't work.

[askeptic]

I have to confess that I don't understand where your anger is coming from here. I read Bricker's post simply as using a public school perspective as an analogy to argue that AA is a theistic organization (a separate point from whether it's constitutional for judges offer it as a sentencing option). What am I missing?

The situations are not at all analogous. I am not now nor was I then angry with Bricker. His straw men do get tedious though.

Public schools are a state run entity any instance of religion will envolve the question of "undue entanglement" judges offering defendants an alternative to confinement envolves the same issue but the answer is not as established as it is where schools are concerned.

I respect Brickers legal knowledge and because of this I am frustrated that he throws out this straw man.

[glilly]

Liberal, until you can show how skin colour is relevant to the matter, you should not say “screw you” to those who call you on it. Perhaps a program, be it faith based or not, might help you deal with your problem.
It is relevant in that it is an indicator that there hasn't been much migration into the community over the last half century, so there may well be a very high uniformity in religion.

[Liberal]

Liberal, until you can show how skin colour is relevant to the matter, you should not say “screw you” to those who call you on it. Perhaps a program, be it faith based or not, might help you deal with your problem.
Stop being so obtuse. White rural mountain people are overwhelmingly Christian. That's not a comment about race, but about a Christian demographic. You brought up race to tray to derail the point, build a strawman, and wring your hands over it. There are two kinds of racism: singling out people on account of race, and refusing, on account of race, to single out people. You can't scream both "You're a racist!" and "Race doesn't exist!" at the same time. And by the way, for even suggesting such a thing about me, you're a jackass.

[Miller]

Stop being so obtuse. White rural mountain people are overwhelmingly Christian. That's not a comment about race, but about a Christian demographic. You brought up race to tray to derail the point, build a strawman, and wring your hands over it. There are two kinds of racism: singling out people on account of race, and refusing, on account of race, to single out people. You can't scream both "You're a racist!" and "Race doesn't exist!" at the same time. And by the way, for even suggesting such a thing about me, you're a jackass.

Lib, you're not making a heck of a lot of sense in this thread. First of all, you're the one who brought up race, for a reason that is not immediately clear. I agree that there are probably very few non-Christians in this judge's jurisdiction. However, the racial make up of the town does not reliably indicate anything about its religious make up. I suppose one could argue that the fact that the county is so homogenous racially is an indicator that it will also be religiously homogenous, but that was barely implicit in your post, and anyway is an unproven assumption. I live in Marin County, California, which is also overwhelmingly white (not nearly 96%, though), but contains significant numbers of atheists, pagans, and other non-mainstream or non-Western denominations.

[Guinastasia]

Damn, when you people find something to cry about, you turn that Offense-O-Meter all the way up and just alienate whoever the hell passes by. Screw you. And Guin, too. Maybe the judge isn't wrong after all.


Remember this the next time you start bitching when someone uses the term "fundie."
:dubious:

[Lord Ashtar]

I live in Marin County, California, which is also overwhelmingly white (not nearly 96%, though), but contains significant numbers of atheists, pagans, and other non-mainstream or non-Western denominations.
Just for curiousity's sake, can you define what you mean by "significant numbers"? I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm just curious.

[Guinastasia]

A good friend of mine worked as a drug councelor for a few years. He told me about one court-ordered client who was a hardcore atheist. He wouldn't admit to any higher power at all, so my friend did what he usually did in these situations: he tried to substitute "something you love dearly" for "higher power". The only thing the client would admit to loving dearly was a good cheese sandwich, so they tried to use the platonic ideal of the cheese sandwich as the higher power.

Needless to say, it didn't work.


Now see, I always thought that "higher power" meant that in this case, your drinking is out of control, so out of control, that you need HELP, and you can't necessarily do it alone. So, as someone said, the "higher power" could be the group-something that you need to gain control over yourself.

Was I wrong?


Liberal, you seemed to be implying-correct me if I'm wrong!-that because most people in that area are white and Christian, that any NON whites would not be Christian. I'm sorry, but that's how I read it. Look, I get your point that this place is mostly white/Christian, but that doesn't mean that any say, blacks who move to the area are automatically NON Christian.

And when you used the term "WASP", well, not all white people are WASPs, either. WASP basically means White ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT. You could have a person of Irish descent who is a practicing Catholic, and while they would still be white and Christian, they wouldn't be Anglo, nor Protestant, would they?

[askeptic]

I live in Marin County, California, which is also overwhelmingly white (not nearly 96%, though), but contains significant numbers of atheists, pagans, and other non-mainstream or non-Western denominations.

Not to mention a lot of pot heads, a famous movie maker and people who really don't like perfume. I used to live in Bolinas, are they still ripping down the sign? :)

[treis]

It's a statistic, not a racial comment.

the suggestion was made in the post just before Libs that judgement might be more harsh for pagens or muslims, Jews or atheists. Liberal correctly pointed out that that probably isn't much of an issue in that part of the country because of the high ratio of WASPs per capita. The fact that in that part of the country a Pagan, Muslim Jew or Atheist might be the acception to the rule is a statistic. You may believe he is incorrect in that statistic but he definately did not imply in any way that whites can't be atheists or pagens as other posters implied.
He also commented that he agreed with the objections in the same post, yet people didn't hesitate to pull part of his reply out of context and jump all over it.

Even so, then the statistic he gave (white) as a justification for assuming that these people are mostly christian is wrong. I don't have the stats in front of me and correct me if I am wrong but I believe Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be Christian.

[cosmosdan]

Liberal, you seemed to be implying-correct me if I'm wrong!-that because most people in that area are white and Christian, that any NON whites would not be Christian.


Okay, you're wrong. Lib was implying no such thing. Feel better?

[cosmosdan]

Even so, then the statistic he gave (white) as a justification for assuming that these people are mostly christian is wrong. I don't have the stats in front of me and correct me if I am wrong but I believe Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be Christian.

Holy Smokes. How did such a casual observation get so miscontrued? He didn't say or imply anything statistical or otherwise about Christianity and blacks or hispanics. He was speaking speaking specificly and only of the population in that area. Can we move on now? Sheesh!!!

[vibrotronica]

Now see, I always thought that "higher power" meant that in this case, your drinking is out of control, so out of control, that you need HELP, and you can't necessarily do it alone. So, as someone said, the "higher power" could be the group-something that you need to gain control over yourself.

Was I wrong?IANIAA, but yes, that's how it's supposed to work. In this case, the guy was being uncooperative because he had a court order to be there and my friend was at the end of his rope, so they went with the cheese sandwich.

Hell, I'd worship an all-powerful cheese sandwich. Communion would be fun. But I want it to have eight arms. Hindu gods are cool like that. None of that "in His own image" shit. And the sandwich should be able to fly. And solve crime, with the help of his sidekick Chippy. And occasionally he will speak to me and tell me which bits of land are promised to me and instruct me in whom I am expected to smite. Yeah, I like the smiting.

All will bow before my new god, The Big Cheese!

[askeptic]

Holy Smokes. How did such a casual observation get so miscontrued? He didn't say or imply anything statistical or otherwise about Christianity and blacks or hispanics. He was speaking speaking specificly and only of the population in that area. Can we move on now? Sheesh!!!
Bolding mine.

Yea, after you have been here a little longer and the romance between you and Lib has cooled you will see how often we have to ask the very same thing when Lib gets into a thread and nit picks it to death.

Not that we are nit picking here. Lib made a stupid off the cuff remark. By the way he is much better at defending himself than you are Cos. We all know that when Lib gets defensive he can be a tiger. You should know that I have liked Lib for longer than you have known him, so you really do not have to get all high horsey with me I ain't trying to flame him.

[treis]

Holy Smokes. How did such a casual observation get so miscontrued? He didn't say or imply anything statistical or otherwise about Christianity and blacks or hispanics. He was speaking speaking specificly and only of the population in that area. Can we move on now? Sheesh!!!

:confused: Now I am just confused as all hell. He (basically) said that the population was probably Christian becuase they were 96% white. I am fairly certain that is incorrect. They would actually be less likely (on the sole basis of race) to be Christian versus the general population.

[Miller]

Just for curiousity's sake, can you define what you mean by "significant numbers"? I'm not picking a fight with you, I'm just curious.

Not really. I don't have any hard of numbers here, just my anecdotal experience living here my entire life, and having a social circle that's always been amost entirely made up of atheist/agnostics, non-observant Jews, and various flavors of New Age. We're definitly still a minority out here, but not to the extent that they seem to be in other parts of the country.

[cosmosdan]

Yea, after you have been here a little longer and the romance between you and Lib has cooled you will see how often we have to ask the very same thing when Lib gets into a thread and nit picks it to death.
When Lib gets in a nit picking match with folks I usually abandon the thread unless I'm haveing an exchange with someone else not involved with the nit picking. I don't care who made the comment. I responded because what was read into his post was ridiculous, several times from several posters.

Not that we are nit picking here. Lib made a stupid off the cuff remark. By the way he is much better at defending himself than you are Cos. We all know that when Lib gets defensive he can be a tiger. You should know that I have liked Lib for longer than you have known him, so you really do not have to get all high horsey with me I ain't trying to flame him.
I don't agree his remark was stupid. I think what was read into it was a gross misreading of his comment. I am well aware that Lib doesn't need me to defend him. I chose to respond for my own reasons which I am allowed to do.
High Horsey with you??? What you quoted from me was not directed at you. In fact this is my first response directly to you. But while we're on the subject, Your response to his post was pretty silly. His comment that the population there is primarily white Christians said nothing even remotely like No white atheists or Pagans Thats just a goofy conclusion.

[cosmosdan]

:confused: Now I am just confused as all hell. He (basically) said that the population was probably Christian becuase they were 96% white. I am fairly certain that is incorrect. They would actually be less likely (on the sole basis of race) to be Christian versus the general population.

No, you interperted his statement incorrectly. He was merely making a statistical observation that in that region they were more likely to be white and Christian than not. He did NOT say they were more likely to be Christians because they were white. See the difference? Its like speaking of Baghdad and saying they are 96% Arab Muslims. The statistic may not be exactly right. Its just a general observation., not a racial comment. Does that clear it up any?

[Liberal]

Liberal, you seemed to be implying-correct me if I'm wrong!-that because most people in that area are white and Christian, that any NON whites would not be Christian. I'm sorry, but that's how I read it. Look, I get your point that this place is mostly white/Christian, but that doesn't mean that any say, blacks who move to the area are automatically NON Christian.Who said it did?

And when you used the term "WASP", well, not all white people are WASPs, either. WASP basically means White ANGLO-SAXON PROTESTANT. You could have a person of Irish descent who is a practicing Catholic, and while they would still be white and Christian, they wouldn't be Anglo, nor Protestant, would they?No. So what? Are you so bellow headed that you don't know that White Appalachia is almost 100% Christian? If 96% of a town in Appalachia is White, then it is, as I said, unlikely that a large percentage is atheist or pagan. Why the hell you can't just listen to what someone says instead of fretting over made up shit that they might have meant is unclear.

[Liberal]

To intercept your next obsessive nitpick, Guin: Rural WA, Protestant Christian.

[Bosstone]

I'm going to regret this...
I agree with the complaints. I'm not sure it's much of an issue in London, KY, though. It has 2,653 men, 96% of whom are white. The chances that there's a pagan or atheist among the criminal element is rather slim. But still, yeah, wrong is wrong, and this is wrong.
Why the hell you can't just listen to what someone says instead of fretting over made up shit that they might have meant is unclear.
What you said was "96% of whom are white." No mention was given to religion except that the chance of pagans or atheists in that number are slim. All anyone else had to go on, reading those words, was to presume that you were making the logical conclusion that because they're white, they're less likely to be pagan or atheistic, to say nothing of other non-Christian religions.

Had you said "96% of whom are white, and a vast majority of those Christian," this shitstorm probably would not have occurred.

Say what you mean and don't leave others to infer something you leave out. If you leave out a key piece of your assertion, such as "the majority in that area are white and Christian," you really have no grounds on which to get your dander up because someone inferred something different than what you meant to imply.

[villa]

Sheesh, Bricker. Forget "Undue entanglement" much? Judges can and do impose all kinds of conditions. For example often a person charged with DUI is ordered not to enter any place where the primary purpose is the sale of liquor. Not convicted, charged. The person can say screw that and choose confinement or bail. The same with the sentencing condition. The person can say screw it and choose the jail time. The judge is not ordering them to worship.

While the judge is not ordering people to worship, this is a classic unconstitutional condition. See Sherbert v Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). If you cannot force someone to do something, such as going to Church, it is really problematic to bribe them to do so, whether it be giving them extra money, or reduce their prison sentence. And if you want to say people are drawing unfair comparisons, comparing conditions of release on bail to conditions imposed in place of incarceration after imprisonment is one heck of a lot worse than comparing (not claiming them to be identical) school prayer and requiring religious attendance on pain of hard time.

[Liberal]

I'm going to regret this...


What you said was "96% of whom are white." No mention was given to religion except that the chance of pagans or atheists in that number are slim. All anyone else had to go on, reading those words, was to presume that you were making the logical conclusion that because they're white, they're less likely to be pagan or atheistic, to say nothing of other non-Christian religions.

Had you said "96% of whom are white, and a vast majority of those Christian," this shitstorm probably would not have occurred.

Say what you mean and don't leave others to infer something you leave out. If you leave out a key piece of your assertion, such as "the majority in that area are white and Christian," you really have no grounds on which to get your dander up because someone inferred something different than what you meant to imply.Well, that's a good point. However, I believe that the implication was clear, but the inference isn't up to me. If multiple inferences are possible, it seems logical to consider what you know of the person if your intention is to draw one. I'm no racist, and Guin knows it.

[cosmosdan]

I'm going to regret this...
What you said was "96% of whom are white." No mention was given to religion except that the chance of pagans or atheists in that number are slim. All anyone else had to go on, reading those words, was to presume that you were making the logical conclusion that because they're white, they're less likely to be pagan or atheistic, to say nothing of other non-Christian religions.
Had you said "96% of whom are white, and a vast majority of those Christian," this shitstorm probably would not have occurred.
Say what you mean and don't leave others to infer something you leave out. If you leave out a key piece of your assertion, such as "the majority in that area are white and Christian," you really have no grounds on which to get your dander up because someone inferred something different than what you meant to imply.
I think if you consider the post just before his and his next one two posts later which made the qualification "WASPs" then the meaning is fairly clear. It certainly seemed obvious to me. You do make a valid point. It's not the first time I've seen this kind of reaction to a comment because of a qualifier that was omitted.

[KidCharlemagne]

Public schools are a state run entity any instance of religion will envolve the question of "undue entanglement" judges offering defendants an alternative to confinement envolves the same issue but the answer is not as established as it is where schools are concerned.



But isn't the answer less "established" because the question hasn't been asked as often? It would seem the answer is equally clear.

[Miller]

Well, that's a good point. However, I believe that the implication was clear, but the inference isn't up to me. If multiple inferences are possible, it seems logical to consider what you know of the person if your intention is to draw one. I'm no racist, and Guin knows it.

It should be pretty by clear now that your implication was not clear. I sure as hell couldn't tell with any surety what you were trying to say. When this happens, why don't you just try restating your position in plainer language? You seem to have a habit of assuming that anytime anyone doesn't understand something you've posted, they're doing it out of deliberate, malicious intent. A lot of the time, though, it's simply because people don't know what the hell you're talking about. A little more patience and a lot less defensiveness would go a long way.

And where the hell did anyone accuse you of racism? Talk about unwarranted inferences!

[Bosstone]

Well, that's a good point. However, I believe that the implication was clear, but the inference isn't up to me. If multiple inferences are possible, it seems logical to consider what you know of the person if your intention is to draw one. I'm no racist, and Guin knows it.
I'm willing to presume she does know it and hence did not, in fact, make any accusation, as Miller said. I went and read the responses more carefully, and what I saw were two confused people made even more confused by your wholly unhelpful one-word clarification and were trying to ask for more. You read offense where there seemed to be none, jumped to the attack, and now the thread is about what you said rather than what the judge said.

Really, in askeptic's case, the misreading could potentially happen, and I could see it, as the language was a little more confrontational. But Guinastasia asked a very neutral question without even a smiley to add tone. Isn't it possible you're reading way more into her question than is actually there? You certainly seem to assume others should read more into what you actually write.

None of us are that important that we should expect others to sit there for however long it takes to tease out meaning in our words.

[Cerowyn]

Well, that's a good point. However, I believe that the implication was clear, but the inference isn't up to me. If multiple inferences are possible, it seems logical to consider what you know of the person if your intention is to draw one. I'm no racist, and Guin knows it.Your implication was not even remotely clear. In fact, it left me completely bewildered.

[Liberal]

Well, then, if that many people take the wrong inference, I concede that my wording was poor. I apologize. If I could write it again, I would say something along these lines:

Although I think the judge should not be doing what he is doing, the likelihood that atheists or pagans are being coerced into going to church is remote, given the demographics of London, KY — a rural, predominately white Appalachian small town, such places being strong enclaves of Southern Baptist and Pentacostal Holiness congregations especially, and other protestant Christian denominations to a lesser degree, but recognizing and understanding that certain exceptions can and likely do exist as metaphysical possibilities.

[Muffin]

Homogeneity of religion is very relevant. Homogeneity of colour is entirely irrelevant. Rather than stating that most people in the area are Christian, you stated that "96% . . . are white", and then lashed out at those who corrected you on this. Apologizing for your poor wording is a step in the right direction, but a more Christian approach would be for you to apologize for lashing out.

[Miller]

Well, then, if that many people take the wrong inference, I concede that my wording was poor. I apologize. If I could write it again, I would say something along these lines:

That's cool. We're all less than perfectly clear on occasion.

Although I think the judge should not be doing what he is doing, the likelihood that atheists or pagans are being coerced into going to church is remote, given the demographics of London, KY — a rural, predominately white Appalachian small town, such places being strong enclaves of Southern Baptist and Pentacostal Holiness congregations especially, and other protestant Christian denominations to a lesser degree, but recognizing and understanding that certain exceptions can and likely do exist as metaphysical possibilities.

That's something I can absolutely agree with.

[Typo Negative]

For those who are not offended, what if the judge were a pagan, and sentenced Christians to attend Wiccan services? Would that be OK?Why not?


I really don't think any of the defendants are gonna complain. Given the choice between a 30 day lockup or 6 weeks of church (or ceremony) attenance, that's a no-brainer. Hey, you don't have to buy into the dogma, you just gotta show up.

Any way you look at it, this is a court sanctioned dodge of a jail term.

[Guinastasia]

Well, that's a good point. However, I believe that the implication was clear, but the inference isn't up to me. If multiple inferences are possible, it seems logical to consider what you know of the person if your intention is to draw one. I'm no racist, and Guin knows it.


I don't think you're a racist, but you tend to make statements that are harder to unravel than a Rubics Cube. I still don't see how we are supposed to suppose that oh, it's all Christian because it's mostly white. The two are necessarily related.

[Guinastasia]

D'oh! :smack: That should be "the two are NOT necessarily related."

[cosmosdan]

I don't think you're a racist, but you tend to make statements that are harder to unravel than a Rubics Cube. I still don't see how we are supposed to suppose that oh, it's all Christian because it's mostly white. The two are necessarily related.

Quoted by me earlier
No, you interperted his statement incorrectly. He was merely making a statistical observation that in that region they were more likely to be white and Christian than not. He did NOT say they were more likely to be Christians because they were white. See the difference? Its like speaking of Baghdad and saying they are 96% Arab Muslims. The statistic may not be exactly right. Its just a general observation., not a racial comment. Does that clear it up any?

If I say Iraq is 96% Arab Muslims I'm not saying they're Muslim because they're Arab. I'm not saying that Arabs can't be Christians Atheists or Pagens. It's just an observation about that area.
It really doesn't seem all that confuseing, but no matter.

We've had a group hug and we're all better now right??? Good!!

It makes sense that in some cases the sentance to attend worship services might seem completely ineffective yet I feel it has a decent chance of doing some good. I've seen people sentanced to counciling that went reluctantly with no intention of taking it seriously but really confronted their issues. A dose of religion could well stir up something in certain criminals. I repeat my earlier question. How many people would it have to help to be a significant improvement over our current system?

[villa]

But the question of how many people it might help is irrelevant when its constitutionality is considered. If it violates the first amendment, it violates the first amendment even if it gets people off drugs.

[cosmosdan]

But the question of how many people it might help is irrelevant when its constitutionality is considered. If it violates the first amendment, it violates the first amendment even if it gets people off drugs.

True, but I thought that it was as yet undecided if it violates the first amendment or not.

I don't see that it does, but then again it's not my call.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I'm a Christian, but I hated going to church. Parents made me go and the only thing I remember are the times I fell asleep on my feet when we were in prayer. I think the directed worship option is only as usefull as a deterent can be, no more or less than jail time. At least the county has a chance to save some money.

[villa]

I don't see how it doesn't violate the First Amendment. It's a classic Unconstitutional Condition, as far as I can see. If there is serious argument as to whether requiring someone to attend AA is unconstitutional as an establishment of religion or a violation of the free exercise thereof, (which there is, and I think usually judges offer a secular alternative, however inconvenient it may be; I also don't see the present Court accepting a challenge to this sort of thing), then surely telling someone he has the choice between going to Church and going to prison is clearly unconstitutional. At least you can make the argument (not sure how accurate it is, I have never been) that the religious or thest element is tangential to AA. It pretty clearly isn't to a Church.

[Blalron]

The situations are not at all analogous. I am not now nor was I then angry with Bricker. His straw men do get tedious though.

Public schools are a state run entity any instance of religion will envolve the question of "undue entanglement" judges offering defendants an alternative to confinement envolves the same issue but the answer is not as established as it is where schools are concerned.

While there may be valid secular reasons for prohibiting a defendent from consuming alcohol, there are no valid secular reasons for coercing a defendant to attend religious services.

[Liberal]

D'oh! :smack: That should be "the two are NOT necessarily related."It's more than two, Guin. They're not just white; they're rural Appalachian white. It just so happens that that demographic is overwhelmingly SB and PH. Typically, the higher classes are SB, and the lower are PH. That's just the way it is. Sometimes things just correlate, and sometimes those things involve race and ethnicity. If you know, for example, that an area is densely urban and predominately black, then you can bet $10 against $1 that there is an overwhelming opposition in the area to gay marriage. It's not NECESSARILY true that EVERY SINGLE PERSON fits the typical case, but that's not what's being said.

[cosmosdan]

I don't see how it doesn't violate the First Amendment. It's a classic Unconstitutional Condition, as far as I can see. If there is serious argument as to whether requiring someone to attend AA is unconstitutional as an establishment of religion or a violation of the free exercise thereof, (which there is, and I think usually judges offer a secular alternative, however inconvenient it may be; I also don't see the present Court accepting a challenge to this sort of thing), then surely telling someone he has the choice between going to Church and going to prison is clearly unconstitutional. At least you can make the argument (not sure how accurate it is, I have never been) that the religious or thest element is tangential to AA. It pretty clearly isn't to a Church.
My interpertation of the 1st amendmant is that it prohibits the government from promoteing sanctioning a specific religion. It does not mean that the government can't be associated with religion under any circumstance. The arguement can be made that distanceing government from any and all religous association supports atheism as a religous belief. Being completely nuetral seems impossible. We will have to continually examine and redefine the boundries as we are doing now.
The difference here is the mandatory factor. It would be wrong to make attending worship services mandatory which is the objection to AA. In this case it's a choice. I assume that this is used only in minor offenses {relatively speaking} The sentances should be as equal as possible, as in hours of Jail time vs. hours in church. Perhaps a third choice of community service should be included.
The title of the thread indicates that the judge should be fired for even trying such an offensive alternative. So offer an effective alternative in it's place. Don't have one? Didn't think so.

[Muffin]

So offer an effective alternative in it's place. Don't have one? Didn't think so.Participation in an alcohol abuse program that includes evaluation, treatment and follow-up, with treatment to be either out-patient or residential depending on the evaluation report.

[villa]

My interpertation of the 1st amendmant is that it prohibits the government from promoteing sanctioning a specific religion. It does not mean that the government can't be associated with religion under any circumstance. The arguement can be made that distanceing government from any and all religous association supports atheism as a religous belief. Being completely nuetral seems impossible. We will have to continually examine and redefine the boundries as we are doing now.
The difference here is the mandatory factor. It would be wrong to make attending worship services mandatory which is the objection to AA. In this case it's a choice. I assume that this is used only in minor offenses {relatively speaking} The sentances should be as equal as possible, as in hours of Jail time vs. hours in church. Perhaps a third choice of community service should be included.

And with that third choice, this would stand a much greater chance of being constitutional. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is pretty close to the court's, just not in this area. A tax on going to Church would not make it mandatory not to go to Church. It would, however, be unconstitutional in that it would establish an unconstitutional condition - in order to exercise one's constitutional rights, one would have to pay a penalty not applicable to those who exercised the opposing right (the right not to go to Church). The self same thing is at work here. People are presented with a choice between exercising their constitutionally protected right to attend or not to attend religious services. The actions of the judge place a burden on those who chose not to attend religious services that it does not place on those who chose to attend such services - the burden being incarceration. And therein lies the First Amendment violation. That's why the AA 'sentences' do tend, as far as I have seen, to give a third option. If this doesn't, and it appears not to, it's a violation.

One thing I like to try doing to see if there is a Fist Amendment violation is to turn it around - if the judge was saying people had a 'choice' between going to jail or stoppign attending church. Would you be so quick to call that constitutional? What if they changed it to reading go to jail or go to this specific place of worship? Do you really think it would not be unconstitutional to only offer Baptists, for example, the right to worship at the place they chose as opposed to going to jail?

The title of the thread indicates that the judge should be fired for even trying such an offensive alternative. So offer an effective alternative in it's place. Don't have one? Didn't think so.

You cannot look at things in isolation like this. The First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses do not have opt outs for matters of criminal justice that hypothetically work better this way. There are other values that those clauses are intended to protect that are denigrated by forced attendance at Church rather than jail time. It simply doesn't make a difference if this is the most effective way of rehab or not. If it ain't constitutional, it ain't constitutional. Solve that issue first, then look at what the most effective method of rehab is.

[Typo Negative]

While there may be valid secular reasons for prohibiting a defendent from consuming alcohol, there are no valid secular reasons for coercing a defendant to attend religious services.
How is it coercive? The defendant is free to do his time in the county jail.

[Miller]

How is it coercive? The defendant is free to do his time in the county jail.

That would be the coercion.

[treis]

It's more than two, Guin. They're not just white; they're rural Appalachian white. It just so happens that that demographic is overwhelmingly SB and PH. Typically, the higher classes are SB, and the lower are PH. That's just the way it is. Sometimes things just correlate, and sometimes those things involve race and ethnicity. If you know, for example, that an area is densely urban and predominately black, then you can bet $10 against $1 that there is an overwhelming opposition in the area to gay marriage. It's not NECESSARILY true that EVERY SINGLE PERSON fits the typical case, but that's not what's being said.

You do realize the difference between saying a community is 96% white, WAPSs and rural white Appalachains? Each of those is a distinct group in society that are not interchangable.

[Typo Negative]

That would be the coercion.No, doing the time in the county jail is a consequence. A consequence of the crime, not of refusing the option of church (or AA meetings or other treatment options).

[cosmosdan]

Participation in an alcohol abuse program that includes evaluation, treatment and follow-up, with treatment to be either out-patient or residential depending on the evaluation report.
That seems like a viable alternative. We're still left to wonder if such a program has any better success rate than just going to church. There's also a question of availability of such a program and how many it will accomadate. Didn't we decide it can't be AA because they're too religious?

[Miller]

No, doing the time in the county jail is a consequence. A consequence of the crime, not of refusing the option of church (or AA meetings or other treatment options).

Doing time in jail is a consequence of the crime. Being offered to go to religious services instead of being punished for the crime is coercing someone into participating in religion. Being offered to go into a non-religious rehabilitiation program instead of being punished is also coersion, but not of a form that the government is specifically forbidden to practice. Any situation in which you are told, "Do X or bad thing Y will happen to you," is coersion. Prison itself is a form of coersion, for that matter. "Behave, or we send you to jail," is one way we coerce people into avoiding anti-social behavior.

FTR, the word "coersion" now looks totally wierd to me.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

FTR, the word "coersion" now looks totally wierd to me.
[nitpick ON]

That's because it's "coercion", with a second C.

[nitpick OFF]

[Miller]

[nitpick ON]

That's because it's "coercion", with a second C.

[nitpick OFF]

Fuck! I wrote the whole post like that, then went back and changed it at the last second, because it didn't look right anymore. Dammit, I even had it right in my first post to spooje! Arrrgh!

[ookpik]

How successful have the death penalty or life imprisonment been as deterrents ?

The judge in question may very well be at that point which any parent of a teenager knows all too well...He's willing to try anything because nothing seems to have any positive effect.

[cosmosdan]

And with that third choice, this would stand a much greater chance of being constitutional. Your interpretation of the First Amendment is pretty close to the court's, just not in this area. A tax on going to Church would not make it mandatory not to go to Church. It would, however, be unconstitutional in that it would establish an unconstitutional condition - in order to exercise one's constitutional rights, one would have to pay a penalty not applicable to those who exercised the opposing right (the right not to go to Church). The self same thing is at work here. People are presented with a choice between exercising their constitutionally protected right to attend or not to attend religious services. The actions of the judge place a burden on those who chose not to attend religious services that it does not place on those who chose to attend such services - the burden being incarceration. And therein lies the First Amendment violation. That's why the AA 'sentences' do tend, as far as I have seen, to give a third option. If this doesn't, and it appears not to, it's a violation. It took a little thinking to figure this one out but I got it. You make a valid point but not an airtight one. These are minor offenses with some hope of reformation. If the two choices are equitable as I mentioned earlier, then I don't see any undue burden. Do you assume that time in county lock up is far more aggregious than going to worship? Perhaps either choice is a burden depending on the individual doing the chooseing. They are free to choose what they think is their best alternative. I think a third choice is a good idea but in rural area their may not be three. In fact in Urban areas there probably more non religious choices. In rural areas I see it as just useing the resources available.

One thing I like to try doing to see if there is a Fist Amendment violation is to turn it around - if the judge was saying people had a 'choice' between going to jail or stoppign attending church. Would you be so quick to call that constitutional?
Whats the reasoning behind not attending church. The reason to attend is the hope for reformation and turning a danger to society into a good citizen. If a Chrsitian zealot committed crimes that could be directly linked to his church attendence {can't imagine that scenario} then offering the choice to stop attending church might be a viable alternative.
What if they changed it to reading go to jail or go to this specific place of worship? Do you really think it would not be unconstitutional to only offer Baptists, for example, the right to worship at the place they chose as opposed to going to jail?
Thats a good point as well. It occured to me that in this area of 96% white Christians {please God not again} that offering worship services might be tantamount to promoteing Christianity specificly. In answer to your question if the religion was limited to one specific religion or denomination, then I would say yes thats unconstitutional. That concept opens another can of worms such as pagen or even satanic services. I would think since the point is rehibilitation then there would have to be a clear opportunity of that happening. What if a church ran a counciling program for addicts that was religious based. Would it be unconstitutional to offer that as a choice?



You cannot look at things in isolation like this. The First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses do not have opt outs for matters of criminal justice that hypothetically work better this way. There are other values that those clauses are intended to protect that are denigrated by forced attendance at Church rather than jail time. It simply doesn't make a difference if this is the most effective way of rehab or not. If it ain't constitutional, it ain't constitutional. Solve that issue first, then look at what the most effective method of rehab is.
Of course it makes a difference. If the most effective method is unconstitutional then we'd better look at a new amendment.
Again I see your point. I just think we should at least consider the purpose that is hoping to be accomplished when deciding if this is unconstitutional. I believe the spirit of the 1st amendment is as I stated. No promotion or supression of a specific religion. With obvious exceptions. As long as the action isn't promoteing a specific religion it's not in violation.

[cosmosdan]

You do realize the difference between saying a community is 96% white, WAPSs and rural white Appalachains? Each of those is a distinct group in society that are not interchangable.
No we didn't thanks for pointing that out.

wait, here's a thought. Is it possible for people to belong to all three groups at the same time??

[Mr2001]

How successful have the death penalty or life imprisonment been as deterrents ?
For drug and alcohol offenders? I doubt they've even been tried.

But don't go getting any ideas.

[villa]

It took a little thinking to figure this one out but I got it. You make a valid point but not an airtight one. These are minor offenses with some hope of reformation. If the two choices are equitable as I mentioned earlier, then I don't see any undue burden. Do you assume that time in county lock up is far more aggregious than going to worship? Perhaps either choice is a burden depending on the individual doing the chooseing. They are free to choose what they think is their best alternative. I think a third choice is a good idea but in rural area their may not be three. In fact in Urban areas there probably more non religious choices. In rural areas I see it as just useing the resources available.

Yes it certainly is more burdensome. Have you ever been inside a prison? I mean, I have been to some pretty crappy church services, but to compare them with going to jail is kind of off the chart as far as I can see. The problem being one (jail) is a burden that the state has a right to enforce. The other (worship) is something that they have absolutely no right to enforce.


Whats the reasoning behind not attending church. The reason to attend is the hope for reformation and turning a danger to society into a good citizen. If a Chrsitian zealot committed crimes that could be directly linked to his church attendence {can't imagine that scenario} then offering the choice to stop attending church might be a viable alternative.

Again you are kind of missing the point with your obsession with efficacy. That question does not matter when you are considering the constitutionality of the matter. If you cannot compel someone not to attend Church, then you cannot compel them to attend church (or impose an unconstitutional condition on them attending or not attending). Unless you suscribe to the narrow view of the First Amendment which says that it prevents the government favoring one religion over another, but not religion in general over non-religion. Even then you would have to allow the person concerned to attend whatever worship service they deemed appropriate.

Thats a good point as well. It occured to me that in this area of 96% white Christians {please God not again} that offering worship services might be tantamount to promoteing Christianity specificly. In answer to your question if the religion was limited to one specific religion or denomination, then I would say yes thats unconstitutional. That concept opens another can of worms such as pagen or even satanic services. I would think since the point is rehibilitation then there would have to be a clear opportunity of that happening. What if a church ran a counciling program for addicts that was religious based. Would it be unconstitutional to offer that as a choice?

Hard core separationists (a position I kind of flirt with, and come closest to with my views on education) would say you could not include a religious based counselling program as an alternative. I'd personally not have a problem if there were secular based programs available too, and the religious aspect of the program was not dominant (as it is not in AA). I find it interesting that you would find limiting it to Christians only would be unconstitutional, but limiting it to 'believers' is not. It's a divide I have seen before, but not one I find sustainable.

As for the definition of what religions to include, the state has cast the net incredibly broad. If you look at the way the Department of Justice treats prisoners claims (that make up a massive proportion of the Free Exercise claims in this country) then you will see a willingness to accept pretty much any set of beliefs someone professes. I can find the actual standard if you want. Prisoners with bugger all else to do found religions all the time, such as one a Professor of mine worked on which had as its chief sacrament steak to be taken in daily worship services.

If you are going to allow attendance at mainstream religion, you have to allow attendance at minority religious services. Otherwise you have the government deciding which religions are good enough, and that ain't right.

Of course it makes a difference. If the most effective method is unconstitutional then we'd better look at a new amendment.
Again I see your point. I just think we should at least consider the purpose that is hoping to be accomplished when deciding if this is unconstitutional. I believe the spirit of the 1st amendment is as I stated. No promotion or supression of a specific religion. With obvious exceptions. As long as the action isn't promoteing a specific religion it's not in violation.

So you are happy with the promotion of religion in general as opposed to non-religion. Well, so are at least three members of the Court at the moment. I think that is a misinterpretation, but I sure don't want to get into a long argument on framers' intent etc. The problem with your approach is that the benefits of the program are immediate, and its effect on the First Amendment big picture are small. Your way will almost invariably allow government support for religion. It ignores the cumulative effect of consistent government involvemnt in religion.

And before people jump on me as being hostile to religion, I'd say that I think the danger is much more for the churches concerned than for the state. Government involvement corrupts religion - growing up in the UK I only had to look at the Church of England to see what it can do.

Yes, if it is unconstitutional and works, you might want an amendment. I think that is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, though, when you consider that it can be made constitutional (IMHO) by adding a secular viable option. Is that so hard for the judge to do? To be honest, though, if all the 'religious' requirement is is attendance at services, not rehab etc, then I don't think it can be rescued, however effective it is.

[ookpik]

For drug and alcohol offenders? I doubt they've even been tried.

But don't go getting any ideas.

No of course not, I was simply using this as an example.

[treis]

No we didn't thanks for pointing that out.

wait, here's a thought. Is it possible for people to belong to all three groups at the same time??

Holy shit is this really that damn complicated?

White- No more likely to be Christian than the general population IIRC they are actually less likely to be so.

WASP- Christian by definition. Most likely a small minority of Appalachia qualifies as a WASP. The predominant ethnicity in Appalachia is Irish and Scotish.

Now as you can see Liberal's comments made no sense in the context he gave them. As such he was asked for clarification and finally gave us that they were Rural Appalachians.

Rural Appalacians- predominantly Christian.

Halleluah we have a factually correct and accurate statement and it only took us a page to get it!

[Liberal]

My original post unambiguously identified the town, its tiny size, and its location, along with the race of almost the entire population. Only the dingest bat would not know that this was rural Appalachia. A shit stirrer spotted one of the knee-jerk words, ripped it out of context, and screamed about it. There ensued inexplicable calamity over some perceived forbidden expression. After paraphrasing the original OP with the most obvious implications written out, I was given a pass by Miller, who wrote: "That's something I can absolutely agree with." I would appreciate people just dropping the matter. Even murderers are not subjected to double jeopardy.

[cosmosdan]

Holy shit is this really that damn complicated?

No it isn't which makes me wonder why you keep bringing it up. It is wearisome.
Consider the issue dropped.

[cosmosdan]

The other (worship) is something that they have absolutely no right to enforce.
In this case enforcement must mean if you fail to attend as you agreed to then it's off to the lockup you go.

Again you are kind of missing the point with your obsession with efficacy. That question does not matter when you are considering the constitutionality of the matter. I insist it does. If you cannot compel someone not to attend Church, then you cannot compel them to attend church (or impose an unconstitutional condition on them attending or not attending)
If a church created a doctrine that advocated breaking the law. then we can compel them to abandon said doctrine. See Polgymy. If a nutjob preacher insisted his members do anything within their power to prevent abortion and that might lead to a situation where he himself was arrested as an accomplice. My point being that these laws are subject to interpertation precisely because of efficacy. We are morally bound to examine and redefine them when the need arises.
. Unless you suscribe to the narrow view of the First Amendment which says that it prevents the government favoring one religion over another, but not religion in general over non-religion. Even then you would have to allow the person concerned to attend whatever worship service they deemed appropriate. That seems to describe my view. I support peoples right to choose for themselves. If non religion works for you great. I would defend your right to choose that. I also don't see any reason to cry, "unconstitutional" at any hint of religion and goverment being involved together. Religion is a huge part of our history and cultural makeup. second part; I would say they should pick from services that had the possibility of aiding rehibilitation.

Hard core separationists (a position I kind of flirt with, and come closest to with my views on education) would say you could not include a religious based counselling program as an alternative. I'd personally not have a problem if there were secular based programs available too, and the religious aspect of the program was not dominant (as it is not in AA). I find it interesting that you would find limiting it to Christians only would be unconstitutional, but limiting it to 'believers' is not. It's a divide I have seen before, but not one I find sustainable. The laws are applied to the world we live in which is not an ideal one. Their intention is to protect and serve. It is often tricky to discern exactly what that means so we choose. Not based on an absolute principle, but what we judge will best protect and serve in that particular circumstance.
Personnaly I can't find a way to be nuetral. As I said, removeing all religious association from goverment can be argued as supporting atheism which is also a belief structure. If we can't successfully be completely nuetral then we choose what best protects and serves the interest of our citizens. We examine the lines drawn and redraw them when nessecary.
Prisoners with bugger all else to do found religions all the time, such as one a Professor of mine worked on which had as its chief sacrament steak to be taken in daily worship services. Funny, that would be primarily the serve portion of protect and serve ;)

If you are going to allow attendance at mainstream religion, you have to allow attendance at minority religious services. Otherwise you have the government deciding which religions are good enough, and that ain't right. And here I see a major problem. As I said. Use the resources available to you to best protect and serve. In an urban area there might be too many religions to examine and consider, and more secular programs available. So use those programs. In a rural area there may not be much access to secular programs but plenty of churches willing to help. Use those resources.

So you are happy with the promotion of religion in general as opposed to non-religion. Well, so are at least three members of the Court at the moment. I think that is a misinterpretation, but I sure don't want to get into a long argument on framers' intent etc. Me neither. It depends a little on how you want to interpert promotion. This is where I disagree with the strict sepratist. he problem with your approach is that the benefits of the program are immediate, and its effect on the First Amendment big picture are small. Your way will almost invariably allow government support for religion. It ignores the cumulative effect of consistent government involvemnt in religion. Thats why we have to examine and redefine the boundries from time to time. For the record. I am a strong supporter of the seperation of church and state. I understand why it's importent.

And before people jump on me as being hostile to religion, I'd say that I think the danger is much more for the churches concerned than for the state. Government involvement corrupts religion - growing up in the UK I only had to look at the Church of England to see what it can do.I agree. History shows horrible corruption when governments and churches get together.

Yes, if it is unconstitutional and works, you might want an amendment. I think that is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, though, when you consider that it can be made constitutional (IMHO) by adding a secular viable option. Is that so hard for the judge to do? To be honest, though, if all the 'religious' requirement is is attendance at services, not rehab etc, then I don't think it can be rescued, however effective it is.
I'm in favor of a secular option. I think thats a wise balance. I'm saying that if that resource isn't available to some rural areas then allow them to exercise their own judgement {within reason} and do what works without making a stink.

[villa]

No, efficacy does not matter when considering the constitutionality here, however much you insist. To take a different example, even if you can demonstrate that takign Pat Robertson off the airwaves would dramatically reduce attacks on homosexuals, preventing him from having freedom of speech would still violate the First Amendment, unless you can show his speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” (Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (sorry no pinpoint). So general speech cannot be restricted even if it has a KNOWN effect of causing harm, and even if the most efficient way of reducing that harm is to restrict the speech. This is exactly what Katie MacKinnon ran into when she tried her pornography banning statute, and it is exactly the garbage I hear that she teaches to this day. See American Booksellers Association v Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985). If this is a violation, its a violation regardless of whether there is any other way of running effective rehab schemes. The idea being that separation of church and state is (gasp) more important than having successful rehad programs.

If a church created a doctrine that advocated breaking the law. then we can compel them to abandon said doctrine. See Polgymy. If a nutjob preacher insisted his members do anything within their power to prevent abortion and that might lead to a situation where he himself was arrested as an accomplice.

Again no. A church can preach breaking the law all it likes, and unless there is a clear and present danger of legal violation occuring (and of those violations being serious enough to warrant such action) then stepping in would violate the First Amendment (again, see Brandenburg v Ohio). To fit into the present scenario, let us say a religious faith encourages the use of peyote (many Native American religions) or marijuana (Rastafari). If someone is convicted of use of either of these substances, do you really think it would pass muster to say to them they did not have to go to jail if they agreed to no longer go to worship services of their faith, because of what was being preached there?

Atheism has been found repeatedly not to be a religion under the law. Not an argument I want to get into, but that's where it stands. I fail to see how no supporting religion over non-religion can possibly be seen as supporting atheism. Giving people an advantage because they endorse one religion out of a whole panoply of religions is by its very nature discriminatory against atheists. As I said, it is a view some hold. I just wish people would be honest about it and admit they think atheists are entitled to fewer benefits from government, rather than dress it up as 'neutrality' when it patently isn't.

Please don't hold the idea that I don't think these laws should be tested for efficacy. I certainly do. A constitution, ineffective law (like many of the drugs laws) should be abolished. But the First Amendment is way too important to say that because a certain program is effective in drug rehab, we should forget that it breaches the separation of church and state. As I have said, the gain from individual effective programs will almost always offset the loss to the First Amendment, when looked at on the micro level.

Think carefully about what this is suggesting. People are faced with a choice of prison or going to Church. No secular alternatives allowed. I'm willing to guess no permission for Satanist or Wiccans, Janists or Santarians to practice. No punishment for your crime if you go pray to God (or any God). How is that in ANY way tolerable in this nation?

[cosmosdan]

No, efficacy does not matter when considering the constitutionality here, however much you insist. The idea being that separation of church and state is (gasp) more important than having successful rehad programs.

Very informimg. Thanks. I see your point. Let me clarify mine. What I'm suggesting is that if something isn't clearly a violation and seems to be doing good then take it's effectiveness into consideration. I've already agreed that seperation of church and state is important. I just don't agree where the lines of seperation should be drawn.

Again no. A church can preach breaking the law all it likes, and unless there is a clear and present danger of legal violation occuring (and of those violations being serious enough to warrant such action) then stepping in would violate the First Amendment
I need more specifics. Where are the lines drawn? Surely if a preacher advocated killing homosexuals or blowing up abortion clincs for God then that would be illegal. What was the deal with Polgymy? There's a belief that doesn't even present a clear danger to anyone and it was outlawed.
(again, see Brandenburg v Ohio). To fit into the present scenario, let us say a religious faith encourages the use of peyote (many Native American religions) or marijuana (Rastafari). If someone is convicted of use of either of these substances, do you really think it would pass muster to say to them they did not have to go to jail if they agreed to no longer go to worship services of their faith, because of what was being preached there?
Well in that scenario I would say no. You're talking compulsion. Thats not really the issue. What if the choice is to spend some time in jail or get community service and agree to not go to those services. If they choose not to go it's a different matter. Ali chose jail because of his belief in Islam. He wasn't excused because of his beliefs.
Atheism has been found repeatedly not to be a religion under the law. Not an argument I want to get into, but that's where it stands I did not know that but understand it. I did not refer to atheism as a religion did I? My response would be that the word God is not a religion either. If we are not promoteing any specific religion from as specific as Baptist to as general as Christian but continue to support the freedom to worship, then some fringe involvement between government and a church is not a violation. I fail to see how no supporting religion over non-religion can possibly be seen as supporting atheism. You'll have to rephrase that one. I didn't get it. What I'm saying is that by striveing to remove any mention of a diety of any kind from anything associated with government we may be supporting a religous belief just as much as leaveing some in. Giving people an advantage because they endorse one religion out of a whole panoply of religions is by its very nature discriminatory against atheists. As I said, it is a view some hold. I just wish people would be honest about it and admit they think atheists are entitled to fewer benefits from government, rather than dress it up as 'neutrality' when it patently isn't.
You lost me again. What specificly are you speaking of? What advatages? What fewer benefits are you speaking of?

Please don't hold the idea that I don't think these laws should be tested for efficacy. I certainly do. A constitution, ineffective law (like many of the drugs laws) should be abolished. But the First Amendment is way too important to say that because a certain program is effective in drug rehab, we should forget that it breaches the separation of church and state. As I have said, the gain from individual effective programs will almost always offset the loss to the First Amendment, when looked at on the micro level.
Again. If it clearly violates the first amendment then I believe the danger in such a practice should be apparent to most. Then again there's plenty of stuff I consider dangerous violations of civil rights going on now that are touted as legal. I'm in no way advocateing judgeing a program only by it's success rate.
It has yet to be decided if this is a clear violation or not right??
Think carefully about what this is suggesting. People are faced with a choice of prison or going to Church. No secular alternatives allowed. I'm willing to guess no permission for Satanist or Wiccans, Janists or Santarians to practice. No punishment for your crime if you go pray to God (or any God). How is that in ANY way tolerable in this nation?
I don't have to think to carefully to see that your description here is not what we're talking about. We're probably not talking prison but rather a county lock up. We're talking minor possesion charges right? We're also not adding a "you must pray" clause. You can choose to attend. Pay attention and participate or don't. It's up to you. My guess is that the judge is hoping that a room full of church goers will have a better influence than a room full of other criminals. That devious bastard. As I mentioned. I'm in favor of secular third choice in any area that has that resource.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I need more specifics. Where are the lines drawn? Surely if a preacher advocated killing homosexuals or blowing up abortion clincs for God then that would be illegal. What was the deal with Polgymy? There's a belief that doesn't even present a clear danger to anyone and it was outlawed. I'll take a swing at this part. Keep in mind, although I've read law for years as part of my work, I'm not a lawyer, so this is the opinoin of an informed layperson, no more.

A preacher can preach sermons in church, send out newsletters, yammer on TV advocating killing homosexuals, destroying abortion clinics, and so forth, and have his/her right to do so protected under the First Amendment. If that preacher leads a march on an abortion clinic (even better, staffed with homosexuals -- a two-for-one special!), orates outside it demanding its obliteration, and concludes by urging on the mob that proceeds to kill and burn, then yeh, I'd say s/he'd be facing prosecution for inciting to riot. If that preacher singles out a specific individual as deserving obliteration, and one of his/her followers shortly thereafter kills the targeted person, I believe there'd also be grounds for an action, civil for damages if not criminal.

As to polygamy, there again I believe to advocate it is protected under the First Amendment, but to practice it is outlawed because marriage is way more than a joining in God's sight of two persons. There are a host of legal implications, rights, obligations created by marriage, and these rights, obligations, etc., do concern the civil authorities. Things like responsibility for children's support and welfare, inheritance rights, so on and so forth, would be affected by polygamy. Since our society has chosen to define marriage and thereby to formulate its civil/legal implications based on monogamy, to practice polygamy has been made illegal as contravening the entire structure of the institution.

As I say, I'm no lawyer, and if one of our members of the bar would like to correct me on any of this, I'd appreciate it.

[villa]

Very informimg. Thanks. I see your point. Let me clarify mine. What I'm suggesting is that if something isn't clearly a violation and seems to be doing good then take it's effectiveness into consideration. I've already agreed that seperation of church and state is important. I just don't agree where the lines of seperation should be drawn.

I guess the issue is that this is clearly a violation. There's no secular alternative offered, the person is not being sent to rehab, they are being sent to a church service. There is no way this is constitutional. None. If this was religious rehab, it might be different, but it isn't. There just is no right to tell people to go to church.

I need more specifics. Where are the lines drawn? Surely if a preacher advocated killing homosexuals or blowing up abortion clincs for God then that would be illegal. What was the deal with Polgymy? There's a belief that doesn't even present a clear danger to anyone and it was outlawed.

Freddy has done a prety good job of the first part here. As to the polygamy thing, I am really not sure what you are asking specifically. As far as I know, no Church has ever been barred from supporting polygamy (not to say they haven't, as the treatment of the Mormons was pretty suspect), and I would imagine it has serious First Amendment issues attached. There's a fundamental difference between that and banning polygamy. The government is allowed to pass laws of general applicability that burden religions, as long as the intent is not to specifically burden the religion. But to turn around prevent the church from preaching that the baned activity should be allowable or indeed is religiously required is a violation of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Well in that scenario I would say no. You're talking compulsion. Thats not really the issue. What if the choice is to spend some time in jail or get community service and agree to not go to those services. If they choose not to go it's a different matter. Ali chose jail because of his belief in Islam. He wasn't excused because of his beliefs.

I am utterly lost here. Telling someone they can stay out of jail by not going to church is not allowed; but telling them they can stay out of jail by gong to church is impermissible? Or am I missing your point? I think there is a massive First Amendment issue any time the government says someone has to give up their totally legal religious activities or go to jail, even if they have committed a crime that under law warrants jail time.

I did not know that but understand it. I did not refer to atheism as a religion did I? My response would be that the word God is not a religion either. If we are not promoteing any specific religion from as specific as Baptist to as general as Christian but continue to support the freedom to worship, then some fringe involvement between government and a church is not a violation. You'll have to rephrase that one. I didn't get it. What I'm saying is that by striveing to remove any mention of a diety of any kind from anything associated with government we may be supporting a religous belief just as much as leaveing some in.

You called atheism a belief structure. My mistake was to extrapolate from that (which is part of the test for religion under the First Amendment IIRC) to you saying atheism was a religion. My bad. But by requiring attendance at a worship service, the government is supporting religion over non-religion, religion here being seen as including attendance at worship services.

You lost me again. What specificly are you speaking of? What advatages? What fewer benefits are you speaking of?

The advantages are the ability to go to worship services of one's own faith and not go to jail. The atheist is presented with the choice of attending worship services he may find morally objectionable or going to jail. That's the benefit that religious people are given under this law. You may not think it important, but it is certainly constitutionally cognizable.

I don't have to think to carefully to see that your description here is not what we're talking about. We're probably not talking prison but rather a county lock up. We're talking minor possesion charges right? We're also not adding a "you must pray" clause. You can choose to attend. Pay attention and participate or don't. It's up to you. My guess is that the judge is hoping that a room full of church goers will have a better influence than a room full of other criminals. That devious bastard. As I mentioned. I'm in favor of secular third choice in any area that has that resource.

You don't think county lock up is a big deal? I'd also be interested to see the difference in effect on people's criminal record, depending on how it is recorded (I accept we don't have that information right now). You may well be in favor of a secular third choice. But that ain't present here. I'm not sure it would save the program even if it was, but it does not exist here, so it is not exactly relevant for the discussion at hand. This isn't a judge saying go to religious rehab or go to jail. He's saying go to a Church service or go to jail. It's not even close to being constitutional.

[cosmosdan]

A preacher can preach sermons in church, send out newsletters, yammer on TV advocating killing homosexuals, destroying abortion clinics, and so forth, and have his/her right to do so protected under the First Amendment. If that preacher leads a march on an abortion clinic (even better, staffed with homosexuals -- a two-for-one special!), orates outside it demanding its obliteration, and concludes by urging on the mob that proceeds to kill and burn, then yeh, I'd say s/he'd be facing prosecution for inciting to riot. If that preacher singles out a specific individual as deserving obliteration, and one of his/her followers shortly thereafter kills the targeted person, I believe there'd also be grounds for an action, civil for damages if not criminal.
As I say, I'm no lawyer, and if one of our members of the bar would like to correct me on any of this, I'd appreciate it.
Wow!! Thanks. That seems really loopy to me that any religion in the US could openly advocate killing anyone. My head is spinning. I'm a big free speech advocate but I thought there were laws against that. I guess if free speech was limited to never advocateing any illegal act then the authorities could use that to persecute any group they chose to.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I guess if free speech was limited to never advocateing any illegal act then the authorities could use that to persecute any group they chose to. Bingo! Which is why protecting First Amendment rights, even for loathesome groups like the KKK, is so important.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=villa]I guess the issue is that this is clearly a violation. There's no secular alternative offered, the person is not being sent to rehab, they are being sent to a church service. There is no way this is constitutional. None. If this was religious rehab, it might be different, but it isn't. There just is no right to tell people to go to church.
Has it been declared a violation by officials or is this your personnal assessment?
Undeclared by officials =not clearly ; clearly in your opinion is a different matter.
I'm seeing your point but you keep wording this as if they have no choice. They do. It may be that the choice amounts to coercion. I think thats a valid arguement but please don't keep refering to it as them being forced to go.

The government is allowed to pass laws of general applicability that burden religions, as long as the intent is not to specifically burden the religion. But to turn around prevent the church from preaching that the baned activity should be allowable or indeed is religiously required is a violation of both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I see. So preachers can advocate murder but if someone actually does the deed they have to pay. I'd be interested in doing some reading on when and how polygymy was banned. I'm guessing it was very much influenced by other religions. Not relevant to our discussion though.

I am utterly lost here. Telling someone they can stay out of jail by not going to church is not allowed; but telling them they can stay out of jail by gong to church is impermissible? Or am I missing your point? I think there is a massive First Amendment issue any time the government says someone has to give up their totally legal religious activities or go to jail, even if they have committed a crime that under law warrants jail time.
Yeah that was poorly worded. I think I was grasping at straws as well. I was trying to stress that it was a choice not compulsory. It looking at it again and considering the points made above, I see that even if a judge made it a choice the same kind of issue would come up. I assume the judge could reccomend they not attend a church that advocated something illegal.

You called atheism a belief structure. My mistake was to extrapolate from that (which is part of the test for religion under the First Amendment IIRC) to you saying atheism was a religion. My bad. But by requiring attendance at a worship service, the government is supporting religion over non-religion, religion here being seen as including attendance at worship services.
I see. I might object to the word require but I see the point. If it is part of a sentance, even as a choice, once church attendence is chosen by the offender then the goverment "requires" them to fulfill that sentance. Excuse my ignorence, but is there a legal precedent that has stated a government cannot support any form of religion over non religion, or is that an ongoing unresolved arguement?
The advantages are the ability to go to worship services of one's own faith and not go to jail. The atheist is presented with the choice of attending worship services he may find morally objectionable or going to jail. That's the benefit that religious people are given under this law. You may not think it important, but it is certainly constitutionally cognizable.
Ah yes, now I see. Thanks for explaining. It seems you're assuming some things not in evidence. Who said it was "one's own faith" If one offender was religious and while another was atheist I could see that as a good point. I was assuming that the offenders didn't want to do either. I guess we don't know. Your point is well taken.
You don't think county lock up is a big deal? Didn't say that did I? I pointed out that it's not the same as the term prison which you used. Do you disagree? It occurs to me that in minor offenses the judge may have much more lattitude in imposeing sentance than he would in more serious crimes. That might also effect the issue of it being constitutional or not. Maybe not.

Here's how I see this scenario, although it's mere guesswork based on little information. A judge in a rural area sees church attendence as haveing a better chance at rehibilitation than the county lock up. These offenders are probably locals who may have attended church in their youth. He gives them what he sees as am equitable choice. Do your time and get it over quickly or spread it out over a series of Sundays. Now the ACLU is alerted and rushes down to defend the rights of people who have no objection to something that works on a local level.
I don't see this as a threat to the first amendment. It's in the area of states rights to make a local decision or federal intervention to protect the rights of citizens.
If my impression is wrong and we have a religous zealot trying to coerse non believers into accepting Jesus under threat of jail time thats a different story.
You seem to be saying that the details don't matter. I'm saying that when a judge makes a decision about how to deal with a certain situation then the details do matter and he takes them into account.

[Polycarp]

Although I find the idea somewhat abhorrent (attending a worship service as a condition of release is not necessarily going to impart any spiritual benefit to the quasi-compulsory attendee, the only reasonable ground on a metaphysical theistic level for such a requirement), in point of fact, alternative sentences can be quite creative (make restitution, community service, attend a rehabilitative program, etc.) when imposed as an alternative to jail time and/or a fine. The idea is that there is a maximum sentence specified in law, and the judge may temper justice with mercy in offering an alternative that he believes will be of more benefit to the offender and the community than merely locking the offender up. Given that idea and the opinion of the judge that attending a worship service may be beneficial to his sentencees' spiritual welfare, it would be a legitimate alternative to offer.

However, I can see major Establishment Clause problems with such a sentence, even though there are some justifications for it.

[cosmosdan]

we've been having this very civil discussion in the Pit. so here

Well, shit,....and....friggin.......and......... doody head.

There!! Is that more appropriate?

[villa]

Cosmodan

Has it been declared unconstitutional yet? Not as far as I know, though I see no way this could survive under existing precedent. It is though, linked to the later question you ask - whether the court has ever decided if the Estalishment Clause means the government cannot promote a religion, or religion in general or what. The problem here is not that the Court has never decided, but they have decided on every single side of the equation, and not in really any consist pattern. There are at least 5 differing interpretations of the religion clauses on the Court at the moment, and if my guess of Rehnquist's replacement is right (McConnell) you will get a 6th. The fun will come because it is a 6th view, on the 'right' plitically, yet violently opposed to Nino Scalia's interpretation of religious matters.

To me, the right to advocate illegal activity is pretty important, for the reasons you came round to later on. One of the things that pissed me off about British law wass the spread of laws designed to prevent free speech.

We seem to have come to a point which while not an impasse, is pretty much a terminus. I think even the present court would strike such a program, but the case will never ever get there. My hope is we never get the constitutionality question answered, because the judge drops the program and moots the question.

[cosmosdan]

Cosmodan

Has it been declared unconstitutional yet? Not as far as I know, though I see no way this could survive under existing precedent. It is though, linked to the later question you ask - whether the court has ever decided if the Estalishment Clause means the government cannot promote a religion, or religion in general or what. The problem here is not that the Court has never decided, but they have decided on every single side of the equation, and not in really any consist pattern. There are at least 5 differing interpretations of the religion clauses on the Court at the moment, and if my guess of Rehnquist's replacement is right (McConnell) you will get a 6th. The fun will come because it is a 6th view, on the 'right' plitically, yet violently opposed to Nino Scalia's interpretation of religious matters.

To me, the right to advocate illegal activity is pretty important, for the reasons you came round to later on. One of the things that pissed me off about British law wass the spread of laws designed to prevent free speech.

We seem to have come to a point which while not an impasse, is pretty much a terminus. I think even the present court would strike such a program, but the case will never ever get there. My hope is we never get the constitutionality question answered, because the judge drops the program and moots the question.

I've very much enjoyed our discussion. It's been educational for me which is one of the reasons I enjoy SDMB. I think one of the beautiful things about our government is was built to evolve. Our founders knew they didn't have all the answers. I appreciate the fact that one of the main principles is that to insure my own rights I am morally bound to defend those same rights for other citizens.
As I said, I support seperation of Church and State. There are people who seem to think that historically Christianity has some kind of dibbs on this country. It's ridiculous. They speak of Christian principles and values which are figments of their imagination. We are now more multicultural than ever includeing the variety of religions. In many respects I think a move toward neutrality is the wise choice. I do want spiritual beliefs{includeing atheism} to be included as an important of our culture and part of the dialogue. In some ways I see the strict sepratists as saying and acting on an attitude of "I don't want to hear about it anymore" In my mind that smacks of supression of free speech as well. It will be interesting to do a follow up and see how this goes.