and this is relevent to your objection in what way?
Got any evidence against it? You're making the claim he doesn't exist. So prove your point.
But back on topic, if they don't want to sit in church with a bunch of beautiful women nicely dressed in a gorgeous building......**** 'em. Lock 'em up. It's their choice.
Ah...so it doesnt impact you in even the smallest bit. Well...that DOES make sense that it would matter to you.I am pretty sure I would a) not be committing a crime to warrant being in this position to begin with, but certainly b) not going to be in this area to even have the chance of going up in front of any judge in that area.
But keep trying to divert the topic. It is making our case for us that you have little argument for your position.
I was getting ready to say the very same thing. Besides it won't hurt anyone to learn an little about how to treat your fellow man and it doen't have to be about religion, Jesus is all about being the best person you can be as you, do unto others etc.
it is relevant to your counter objection.
1) there are church going people who commit crimes.
2) so long as there are [any] church going people who commit crimes -regardless of even if it is just potential, this is preferential treatment.
or are you going to argue there are no church going people who commit misdemeanors, no DUI's, no domestic abuse cases. no unpaid parking tickets?
I'd go to jail. I'd also have good grounds to fight that someone in a similar situation to me but with different religious beliefs was basically offered a less severe punishment because of their religious beliefs alone. That is discrimination. The law would then be struck down somewhere within our judicial system since it is religious discrimination and violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. It would cost them a lot more in legal battles than it would ever have cost to just offer a general community service program.
Don't feel like actually debating me on the issues I brought up then, huh?[/QUOTE]You read a two line sentence in a two paragraph article and pretend to know if everyone is offered the sentence...if there are or arent local churches of multiple denomination, or what the travel restrictions are? And Im supposed to debate that? Heres the thing...Im willing to bet they have a lot more sentencing options for diffent people other than go to jail or go meet with Pastor John at the Antioch baptist church on 12th street. You know little if anything about the judge, the community, their typical sentencing...but because religion is involved you pretend you 'know' how this is a violation of the constitution.
The way this is presented says that it is. Did you watch the video? The sheriff said that the punishment included church attendance every Sunday. If they don't want to make it sound like a violation of the Constitution, it is their responsibility to clarify what is being offered.
I do not attend church because my personal religious beliefs are personal and not necessary to be shared with any other person. This would be a violation of my freedom of religion since I am being forced to learn attend a religious service that has nothing to do with my beliefs as a punishment for a crime. It is a violation of the 14th because someone in a similar situation as me legally, but who has religious beliefs that have them attending church regularly, is being offered a less severe punishment just due to their religious beliefs already coinciding with an established religion, which is part of the punishment, while mine do not include community acceptance or sharing of my beliefs.
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?
I would bet they also use that as a component of sentencing. They probably also mandate the occasional substance abuse treatment program. Id be willing to bet they even court order anger management classes, smoking cessation classes, and parenting classes. But because religion is mentioned...THIS we must become fixated upon.
Please...should the unfortunate occasion ever occur whereby you are set before this judges court...choose option A. I hear the Kale and Pepper steak on friday is to die for.
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?
You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant
strawman, I never said there weren't
how so? in either case the offender has the choice to not go to jail
I would argue that the chances of a person who goes to chruch every sunday doing so,, is so small as to be irrelevent to the discussion. I am a "church going person" and I don't go every sunday. I don't know anyone who attends every sunday.
And which churches are in that area? Who decides if the church is acceptable or not? What about people who do not fit into any established church? Who prevents a church from ridiculing a person for their personal religious beliefs or other choices?
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant
Im glad you are a legal expert. The fact that they offer it and live in a place with 'lectricity means they probably also have a city attorney who would tell them it was illegal if it actually was. But...preach on, internet constitutional expert.The way this is presented says that it is. Did you watch the video? The sheriff said that the punishment included church attendance every Sunday. If they don't want to make it sound like a violation of the Constitution, it is their responsibility to clarify what is being offered.
I do not attend church because my personal religious beliefs are personal and not necessary to be shared with any other person. This would be a violation of my freedom of religion since I am being forced to learn attend a religious service that has nothing to do with my beliefs as a punishment for a crime. It is a violation of the 14th because someone in a similar situation as me legally, but who has religious beliefs that have them attending church regularly, is being offered a less severe punishment just due to their religious beliefs already coinciding with an established religion, which is part of the punishment, while mine do not include community acceptance or sharing of my beliefs.
You arent being FORCED to do ANYTHING. Should you be the poor unfortunate soul you are given a CHOICE (yes...a CLEAR violation of your 'rights'). And just for fun...try doing a quick google search on North Baldwin County, the area we are talking about, and the number and varying available denominations. Or did you do that already?
Risky Thicket said:You'd be fine if the criminal chose a Buddhist temple or Hindu temple or a Muslim mosque over a Christian church? Do you believe the judge in Alabama would be fine with any of these alternative or do you think Christian church is what the judge meant?
Okay, how about making church-going folk who commit crimes be required to perform additional services for their church. Mentor program, meals on wheels, day care, maintenance/upkeep. Essentially community service for the cross.
i would choose wiccan services.
I think that if they offer a variety of church types they should meet the Constitutional standard. If they only offer one type of church, that could be construed as promotion, but if many or all are offered then it is not promotion.
he said "church of their choice" NOT "christian church of their choice". so you tell me what he meant
There is no establishment of religion occuring. There IS however a 'choice' being offered. I do strongly hope you stay true to your beliefs should you ever be in the unfortunate situation and choose jail.none of which is unconstitutional. the establishment clause has long been practically interpreted as separation of church and state. this is very clear to me.
And which churches are in that area?
Who decides if the church is acceptable or not?
What about people who do not fit into any established church?
Who prevents a church from ridiculing a person for their personal religious beliefs or other choices?
Dood...that is simply SO not true. Google it. You have pert near every denomination you can imagine, and we arent talking about just within the city limits...you are talking all of North Baldwin County.The only churches in this community are christian.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?