I can’t take this shit anymore. My kingdom for a little separation of Cult and State!
Full Story:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/sentenced_to_church
Interesting. So which denomination is he forcing them to go to?
Well, he does just say they have to go to “worship services”. I wonder if worshipping Satan counts?
Laff o’ the day:
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.
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?
I wonder if a devival would count…
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.
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.
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.
How does that affect the determination of whether the practice violates constitutional guidelines for separation of church and state?
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!
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.”
According to A Brief Guide to AA(PDF), page 10.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Because AA isn’t a church or even a religious orgainization?
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:
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.
Here’s a Hallolooya to The Church of The Bitching Boggette, and a good-on-ya to boot.