# Jail or Jesus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889 "2011-09-28T15:05:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/41 "2011-09-28T22:08:12Z")
And the people who already attend church every Sunday? Do they get free reign to vandalize, drive drunk and criminally mischeive or whatever a misdemeanor in Alabama is (I’m guessing something along the lines of not returning the appropriate ‘Roll Tide’ for every ‘Bama!’)? Because if the option was jail, a fine, or bettering myself though video games, guess how afraid I’m going to be of being caught jaywalking? > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Thank you for bringing to my attention something I read before I responded to the thread. And thank you for responding exactly as I predicted in the OP as well. You didn’t even try to rebut my comment. You basically repeated it. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/42 "2011-09-28T22:11:39Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > So you would be ok with the choice of fine, jail, or attending a mosque for a year, keeping in mind that your staying out of jail depends on convincing the imam that you have become a good Muslim. Fine by me. Choice is good, right? 😉 No, but seriously. I’d just pay the fine, which is what I likely would have done _if the option to opt out of going to Mosque every Friday was axed_. The arguments against this are pretty ridiculous and are just idle complaining because it involves “church” (i.e., Christianity). It’s merely an extra option; it doesn’t replace the options that were already on the proverbial table. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/43 "2011-09-28T22:11:58Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Thank you for bringing to my attention something I read before I responded to the thread. As, apparently, you’re pining for a response to that, I’ll humor you. > > Option number one is imprisonment or a fine. Option number two is imprisonment, a fine or going to church for a year. You’re arguing that option number two is fundamentally worse than option number one because option number two makes one choose between going to church, imprisonment and/or a fine, which you figure to be worse, whereas option number one is simply a choice between imprisonment and a fine. How can more allotted choices be worse than fewer allotted choices? Because of the concept of unconditional conditions. The government cannot condition receipt of benefits (a non custodial sentence) on a breach of the First Amendment. You learn that early on in Con Law. Under your analysis, the government could offer double unemployment benefits to those who wear crucifixes, and only half benefits to those who would not eat a bacon sandwich. It’s just more choices! How can that be worse than fewer? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/44 "2011-09-28T22:15:00Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Option number one is imprisonment or a fine. Option number two is imprisonment, a fine or going to church for a year. You’re arguing that option number two is fundamentally worse than option number one because option number two makes one choose between going to church, imprisonment and/or a fine, which you figure to be worse, whereas option number one is simply a choice between imprisonment and a fine. How can more allotted choices be worse than fewer allotted choices? Why should churchgoers (and only churchgoers) get to skate on the imprisonment or fine to which they have (presumably justly) been sentenced? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/45 "2011-09-28T22:17:15Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The arguments against this are pretty ridiculous and are just idle complaining because it involves “church” (i.e., Christianity). The problem is, it doesn’t just involve “church”. It involves the government too – sending people to “church.” I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but that’s somewhat frowned upon according the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/46 "2011-09-28T22:19:33Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > And thank you for responding exactly as I predicted in the OP as well. You didn’t even try to rebut my comment. You basically repeated it. You have to put forth an argument which needs to be rebutted. Aside from screaming “Unconstitutional!”, the only other thing you’ve done is put forth a rhetorical question, which I don’t think you’re looking for an actual answer to since none of us here are sentencing judges privy to each individual person’s case and background. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/47 "2011-09-28T22:23:39Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > You have to put forth an argument which needs to be rebutted. Don’t rebut anything, if you don’t feel it needs rebutting, but repeating something I said sarcastically in the OP, as some sort of argument in favor of what I’m railing against, seems a little weak to me. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/48 "2011-09-28T22:29:20Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Because of the concept of unconditional conditions. > > The government cannot condition receipt of benefits (a non custodial sentence) on a breach of the First Amendment. You learn that early on in Con Law. > > **Under your analysis, the government could offer double unemployment benefits to those who wear crucifixes, and only half benefits to those who would not eat a bacon sandwich.** > > It’s just more choices! How can that be worse than fewer? Oh, do tell how you came about this less-than-wonderful straw man. Inquiring minds (mainly mine) wish to know. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Why should churchgoers (and only churchgoers) get to skate on the imprisonment or fine to which they have (presumably justly) been sentenced? Because they _chose_ to go to church in lieu of paying those fines. > [@Jack Batty](#): > > The problem is, it doesn’t just involve “church”. It involves the government too – sending people to “church.” I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but that’s somewhat frowned upon according the First Amendment. This is skirting dangerously close to playing semantics, but the government isn’t sending anyone to church, but rather allowing them the option of going to church in lieu of serving prison time and/or paying a fine. If you don’t want to go, you don’t have to go. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/49 "2011-09-28T22:38:19Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because they _chose_ to go to church in lieu of paying those fines. And why should the government give people who have commited crimes the option of not paying fines or going to jail simply because they are churchgoers? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/50 "2011-09-28T22:43:02Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And why should the government give people who have commited crimes the option of not paying fines or going to jail simply because they are churchgoers? Because OMG likes church and he’s okay with something obviously unconstitutional as long as it’s something he likes? ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/51 "2011-09-28T22:46:30Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And why should the government give people who have commited crimes the option of not paying fines or going to jail simply because they are churchgoers? Because no one is being given the option of not paying a paying a fine or getting out of going to jail because they are churchgoers but rather because, apparently, they’re not 😛 > [@Lobohan](#): > > Because OMG likes church and he’s okay with anything obviously unconstitutional as long as it’s something he likes. Actually, if you must know, I haven’t been to church in years, and I wouldn’t have a problem with this if it involved any other religion. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/52 "2011-09-28T22:49:08Z")
The interesting thing is, either going to church is a _punishment_, or else we have a self-professed conservative who wants to let criminals off without any punishment. “Son, you’ve been convicted of a crime and must now be punished. Your choice is–a punishment, a different kind of punishment, or hey, we could just not punish you at all!” ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/53 "2011-09-28T22:51:10Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because no one is being given the option of not paying a paying a fine or getting out of going to jail because they are churchgoers but rather because, apparently, they’re not 😛 So, in other words, you think non-churchgoers should be punished more harshly than churchgoers (although they can escape punishment by becoming churchgoers). And you don’t see a constitutional problem with this? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/54 "2011-09-28T22:53:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Because no one is being given the option of not paying a paying a fine or getting out of going to jail because they are churchgoers but rather because, apparently, they’re not 😛 Do you think that church makes people less likely to be assholes? > [@](#): > > Actually, if you must know, I haven’t been to church in years, and I wouldn’t have a problem with this if it involved any other religion. Why shouldn’t atheists have an opportunity to skip out on jail time or fines? Or Jews? Or Muslims? The town doesn’t have any temples or mosques. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/55 "2011-09-28T23:00:04Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Do you think that church makes people less likely to be assholes? It worked for that BTK guy, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/56 "2011-09-28T23:05:06Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I agree. Do you use the same analysis with offers of avoiding jail time in return for AA attendance? No. But reasonable minds could. In New York, for example, the Court of Appeals (confusingly named: they are New York’s highest court) said: > [@](#): > > under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, an atheist or agnostic inmate may not be deprived of eligibility for expanded family visitation privileges for refusing to participate in the sole alcohol and drug addiction program at his State correctional facility when the program necessarily entails mandatory attendance at and participation in a curriculum which adopts in major part the religious-oriented practices and precepts of Alcoholics Anonymous (hereinafter A.A.). Quoting _Matter of Griffin v. Coughlin_, 673 N.E.2d 98 (1996). At least some federal circuits agree (_Warner v. Orange County_, 115 F.3d 1068 (1996)). > [@](#): > > Now one further step away, what about using attendance to prison chapel as an indication that parole should be offered? Or conversion to Christianity as a mitigating factor in death penalty cases? I don’t see any problems with either of those. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/57 "2011-09-28T23:06:23Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > So, in other words, you think non-churchgoers should be punished more harshly than churchgoers (although they can escape punishment by becoming churchgoers). And you don’t see a constitutional problem with this? How are you determining which punishment is more “harsh”? > [@Lobohan](#): > > Do you think that church makes people less likely to be assholes? No but, iirc, it makes them less likely to commit a crime. > [@](#): > > Why shouldn’t atheists have an opportunity to skip out on jail time or fines? Or Jews? Or Muslims? The town doesn’t have any temples or mosques. What about them? It’s impossible to accommodate every group. In this case, said groups weren’t accommodated simply because there are no public places of worship for any other non-Christian religion in the area. That doesn’t come off as discriminatory, which you’re apparently insinuating. Anyway, I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. Since there’s no way to accommodate everyone, you would rather there simply be the option of jail or a fine rather than the option of jail, a fine or going to church for a year? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/58 "2011-09-28T23:10:52Z")
> [@](#): > > What about them? It’s impossible to accommodate every group. It’s not only quite possible, but legally mandated, in accordance with one of the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded, to accommodate everyone. It’s not even particularly hard. All you have to do is to keep church matters out of government. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/59 "2011-09-28T23:14:05Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > How are you determining which punishment is more “harsh”? So, again: Going to church is a “punishment” OR some convicted criminals should have the option of choosing not to be punished at all. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. Since there’s no way to accommodate everyone, you would rather there simply be the option of jail or a fine rather than the option of jail, a fine or going to church for a year? What’s wrong with equally punishing everyone who has been convicted of a crime, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of same? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2011, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889/60 "2011-09-28T23:14:18Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Anyway, I want to make sure I understand your position correctly. Since there’s no way to accommodate everyone, you would rather there simply be the option of jail or a fine rather than the option of jail, a fine or going to church for a year? Yeah. Because then it’s the government giving you a benefit for membership in a religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jail-or-jesus/597889.md?page=4)