Support NeoGAF

[themadcowtipper]

LONDON, Kentucky (AP) -- 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.

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.

Caperton has offered the option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders. It is unclear what effect the sentence has had.

David Friedman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said the option raises "serious constitutional problems."

"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/index.html

 

[ronito]

Why do I get the feeling that a bunch of drunks are starting their church in Kentucky to get around this.

DARN ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!

 

[Johnas]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

 

[SKluck]

There's a town in Kentucky called London?

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah, there may be some issues with this.... but its not straightforward unless the judge is recommending some particular services from faith-based groups.

 

[Hitokage]

There's a town in Kentucky called London?

And you can visit Rome in Georgia.

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

I hope you don't mind being shipped to Iran, then OH NO you might have to follow god's law!

 

[aoi tsuki]

Hmm... 10,000 "Hail Marys" versus a daily ass poundings. Let me think about that one.

 

[Nerevar]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

:lol

wow, talk about dense. Go to church or go to jail - doesn't sound like church and state to me!

By the way, can I lay claim to founding my own cult and say I "attended" that, since the government can't make value judgement's on religions? I think this sounds like a terrible idea.

What if he orders this and I spend an afternoon at home "meditating", like a good buddhist? does that count too, or does it not because it's not a "worship service"?

 

[Drozmight]

Is it a specific church?


But yeah, that's really stupid. Whatever happened to community service?

 

[Cherubae]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting!

Every time I've attended a church sermon it's been very boring and demeaning. I think jail might be a better alternative.

 

[Nerevar]

Yeah, there may be some issues with this.... but its not straightforward unless the judge is recommending some particular services from faith-based groups.

by claiming "worship service" though, isn't he implicitly making a value judgement on which religions to attend? There are many religions in the world that don't rely on "worship service" for the believer, and by phrasing the sentence in that form he seems to be explicitly excluding those religions.

 

[Hitokage]

Don't worry, the Church of GAF welcomes all.

 

[ronito]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802,

Morons indeed....

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Hrm, more than a problem with separation of church and state, I'm bothered that these guys are getting really easy sentences. Jail and rehab are tough, with both punitive and rehabilitative elements. Church happens once a week and just has to be sat through for an hour. It can be a form of rehabilitation, but it's in no way punitive (except maybe on a spiritual level that cannot be monitored by the court).

 

[Johnas]

:lol

wow, talk about dense. Go to church or go to jail - doesn't sound like church and state to me!

By the way, can I lay claim to founding my own cult and say I "attended" that, since the government can't make value judgement's on religions? I think this sounds like a terrible idea.

What if he orders this and I spend an afternoon at home "meditating", like a good buddhist? does that count too, or does it not because it's not a "worship service"?

Just read the information in the first post. Do you think it would do a person more good to sit in a cell somewhere, or attend a worship service?

 

[Phoenix]

by claiming "worship service" though, isn't he implicitly making a value judgement on which religions to attend? There are many religions in the world that don't rely on "worship service" for the believer, and by phrasing the sentence in that form he seems to be explicitly excluding those religions.

Perhaps, but that will depend on interpretation if/when it is brought to a state supreme court. Since the guy who has standing is the one given the option and I don't believe he's complaining, I doubt much more will come of this.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm suspicious until he allows somebody to attend a pagan ritual instead of going to jail.

 

[Nerevar]

Just read the information in the first post. Do you think it would do a person more good to sit in a cell somewhere, or attend a worship service?

I think neither does the person any good. I think state-sponsored rehab or community service is going to be infinitely many times more helpful.

You can make any choice seem appealing by making it "either/or". I mean, that's like saying "which is more helpful, making him eat spiders or go to church"? Of coures one is going to be more appealing, but by limiting the scope of the question you're defeating the purpose of asking it (or you're not if you have ulterior motives ...)

 

[Phoenix]

Don't worry, the Church of GAF welcomes all.

The Church of GAF has excommunicated people before :lol

 

[ronito]

The Church of GAF has excommunicated people before :lol

We only punish them because we love them.

 

[demon]

This isn't exactly new. Some rehabilitation programs are practically Christian church in disguise.

 

[Hitokage]

Just read the information in the first post. Do you think it would do a person more good to sit in a cell somewhere, or attend a worship service?

Yes, because we all love forcing people to be part of religions with formalized services.

 

[Johnas]

I think neither does the person any good. I think state-sponsored rehab or community service is going to be infinitely many times more helpful.

That is certainly possible. The point I should have made more clearly was this. These folks committed a crime, and were sentenced to jail time. Which they deserve. However, instead of that, they were offered the opportunity to do something which most likely would provide them with an inspirational message of hope, but no, don't go around messing with my constitutional rights! If a person doesn't want to go, fine, but what's the point of bringing the ACLU into it?

 

[Johnas]

Yes, because we all love forcing people to be part of religions with formalized services.

No one's forcing anyone. It's an option they can choose to take if they so desire. If not, they can practice their own religion in the privacy of their cell.

 

[Hitokage]

No one's forcing anyone. It's an option they can choose to take if they so desire. If not, they can practice their own religion in the privacy of their cell.

....

 

[Phoenix]

I'm suspicious until he allows somebody to attend a pagan ritual instead of going to jail.

Actually according to his wording, one should be able to do that. If someone DID attend this form of worship service and then got thrown in jail by the judge, then we have 'hammer time' and we get to see this go to the courts...

 

[darscot]

I personally would sit in the cell. This is serrioulsy screwed up. You can't try and force people into being religious.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Yeah, but how is it tracked? Has anybody tried? Has he offered the option to an known pagan (or some other fringe religion)?

 

[ronito]

How is that a choice?

Let's see...I can go to jail and be Bubba's Wilma....or I can go to a church service...what to do...what to do...

AOE I wonder if you'd be this supportive if it said, "Go to jail, or go worship at a Mosque."

 

[Drozmight]

I'd probably just go to church and sleep.

 

[Nerevar]

That is certainly possible. The point I should have made more clearly was this. These folks committed a crime, and were sentenced to jail time. Which they deserve. However, instead of that, they were offered the opportunity to do something which most likely would provide them with an inspirational message of hope, but no, don't go around messing with my constitutional rights! If a person doesn't want to go, fine, but what's the point of bringing the ACLU into it?

No one's forcing anyone. It's an option they can choose to take if they so desire. If not, they can practice their own religion in the privacy of their cell.

:lol

wow, are you a joke character, or do you seriously believe this stuff?

Not to chime in, but are you ok with it if this person then attended a service run by a Muslim group sympathetic to Osama Bin Laden that advocated violent action towards the United States?

 

[Johnas]

....

I guess what you would like me to say is that a person should be granted the privilege of going to a different religious service or affiliation, other than something Christian. That's fine by me. My main rant was the fact that people are saying they would rather go to jail than go to church.

 

[Johnas]

How is that a choice?

Let's see...I can go to jail and be Bubba's Wilma....or I can go to a church service...what to do...what to do...

AOE I wonder if you'd be this supportive if it said, "Go to jail, or go worship at a Mosque."

That's fine. See my previous post.

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah, but how is it tracked? Has anybody tried? Has he offered the option to an known pagan (or some other fringe religion)?

Probably tracked by some form or parole agent or similar.

We'd have to go through his case log to see who he has offered it to, but when you go before a judge I would doubt that he knows what religion you are and even asking it by the judge at sentencing is grounds for a mistrial.

 

[Tortfeasor]

It is illegal... It has even been found unconstitutional to sentence someone to a 12-step program instead of jail due to 12-step being faith based.

 

[Hitokage]

I guess what you would like me to say is that a person should be granted the privilege of going to a different religious service or affiliation, other than something Christian. That's fine by me. My main rant was the fact that people are saying they would rather go to jail than go to church.

Whether or not you personally find church to be more pleasing than jail is rather irrelevant in a country which isn't supposed to force its citizens to pay tribute to an Approved Religion. Furthermore, your "you can practice your own religion in your cell" remark is downright appalling.

 

[iapetus]

I mean, that's like saying "which is more helpful, making him eat spiders or go to church"?

I DEMAND SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND SPIDERS.

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

What??? I seriously hope your joking. This sets a precedent where people who are christian or willing to be christian are given special treatment that is not available to those who are not or choose not to be. I can't beleive that you actually mean what you said.

I guess what you would like me to say is that a person should be granted the privilege of going to a different religious service or affiliation, other than something Christian. That's fine by me. My main rant was the fact that people are saying they would rather go to jail than go to church.

You can't be serious. This is not a matter of "well I'd rather go to church than go to jail, so I'll just go to church", it's a matter of the judge offering preference to people willing to abide by some religious ideal that the constitution specifically states they do not have to abide by. It's simply put constitutionally wrong and I can't beleive anyone wouldn't see that right off.

 

[Mercury Fred]

OH TEH NO, I might get to hear something positive and uplifting! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

Morons who bring up church and state. Complete morons.

:lol :lol :lol
Awesome. Another great day in GAF history. :lol

 

[Phoenix]

It is illegal... It has even been found unconstitutional to sentence someone to a 12-step program instead of jail due to 12-step being faith based.

Yes, that actually applies to any "either or" situation where the or contains a "faith-based" group whose activities profess religion or similar. What the judge should do is not be creative and just send folks to jail.

To add some evidence to your claim.

Four higher courts have evaluated cases in which corrections departments/institutions or conditions of probation have required attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or therapy based on AA's 12 steps. In these cases, failure to comply entailed serious penalties (return to prison, loss of parole opportunities, or major benefits such as family visits). All of these cases have been decided since 1996. Uniformly, the courts have ruled that mandated 12-step attendance violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights begins with the statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." The first part of this statement is called the "Establishment Clause" and has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that no government body can require or encourage religious observance of any type. (This is also known as the separation of church and state.) Two Federal circuit courts (the appeals courts just below the U.S. Supreme Court) and two state high courts (Tennessee and New York) have found that prisons or courts violate this clause when they require that inmates or probationers undergo 12 step therapy or participate in 12-step support groups.

 

[Johnas]

Whether or not you personally find church to be more pleasing than jail is rather irrelevant in a country which isn't supposed to force its citizens to pay tribute to an Approved Religion. Furthermore, your "you can practice your own religion in your cell" remark is downright appalling.

First of all, I want to say that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. And I honestly meant no offense to anyone with my remarks, especially what you found appalling about a person practicing their own religion in their cell. These folks committed crimes. There are repercussions for that, namely jail time in this instance. They are privileged to even have the opportunity to partially carry out their sentence by attending a worship service. If you refuse the privilege, that's OK, that's your choice in this case.

No one is being forced to do anything here. They brought down the sentences on their own heads by committing crimes. My point would still stand if the original story had included any other religion than Christianity. No one can take away the right a person has to practice their religion at its core. You can pray silently wherever you want, it doesn't matter with what religion you affiliate yourself.

 

[Zaptruder]

someone needs to setup a secular organisation that takes care of what we've come to recognize as spiritual psychological needs in people that don't believe or care for the rest of the dogmatic stuff.

 

[Johnas]

What??? I seriously hope your joking. This sets a precedent where people who are christian or willing to be christian are given special treatment that is not available to those who are not or choose not to be.

I agree with you here. That is not the main point I was arguing. I see why everyone got so riled up, I should have been more clear what I was arguing, and I apologize for that.

Please see my previous posts.

 

[demon]

No matter how you fucking slice it, the alternative offered TO JAILTIME clearly violates seperation of church & state. I don't know HOW you could possibly spin that as justifiable and constitutional. Zaptruder is right. There needs to be some kind of non-faith-based, standard organization for rehabilitation.

 

[Phoenix]

No matter how you fucking slice it, the alternative offered TO JAILTIME clearly violates seperation of church & state. I don't know HOW you could possibly spin that as justifiable and constitutional. Zaptruder is right. There needs to be some kind of non-faith-based, standard organization for rehabilitation.

There already are secular alternatives to the faith-based groups who do these things. Some, like Smart Recovery or Save Our Selves, do rely heavily on outside donations and many die because they can't get money - but they are out there.

 

[Zaptruder]

There already are secular alternatives to the faith-based groups who do these things. Some, like Smart Recovery or Save Our Selves, do rely heavily on outside donations and many die because they can't get money - but they are out there.

I don't mean faith based recovery groups.

I mean a secular organisation that attempts to deal with the spiritual needs of people by supplanting the needs with discussions of the world and issues from a secular POV and a community atmosphere akin to major religious groups... only it will welcome anyone in regardless of religious or anything else orientation.

It seems like a good idea... except how the hell you get anyone to give up a couple hours one day a week unless threatened by eternal damnation I'm not sure.

 

[Trident]

Hmm... can someone explain to me how going to jail and going to church are alternative methods to the same conclusion? Jail isn't meant to be primarily rehabilitative, and church isn't primarily meant to be punitive. Even ignoring the obvious church-state separation, I don't see how these two can be considered parallel at all.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't mean faith based recovery groups.

I mean a secular organisation that attempts to deal with the spiritual needs of people by supplanting the needs with discussions of the world and issues from a secular POV and a community atmosphere akin to major religious groups... only it will welcome anyone in regardless of religious or anything else orientation.

It seems like a good idea... except how the hell you get anyone to give up a couple hours one day a week unless threatened by eternal damnation I'm not sure.

See two organizations mentioned above, they both provide what you are talking about.

 

[MetatronM]

I guess what you would like me to say is that a person should be granted the privilege of going to a different religious service or affiliation, other than something Christian. That's fine by me. My main rant was the fact that people are saying they would rather go to jail than go to church.

No, that's not what people are saying. That what you assume people are saying. What people ARE saying is that you just can't do this. Aside from being pretty blatantly against the founding doctrine of separation between church and state, it just undermines the entire legal system.

Why stop here with drug abusers? Why not open it up to murderers and rapists, too? Why not say to them "you can other go to jail or hear the good book?" They are, after all, convicts just like our friendly pious drug abusers. Why shouldn't they be entitled to something "positive and uplifting" if it will turn their lives around?

Why? BECAUSE IT'S A STUPID ASS IDEA.

Let me ask you something. Would you be comfortable with the idea of drug dealers walking around freely when they could have and should have been locked away for crimes that they committed just because they promised to go to mass on Sunday? I know I wouldn't.

 

[explodet]

Can I choose Rastafarianism?