Author Topic: More wacky activist judges (Read 512 times)

crowMAW · « **on:** May 31, 2005, 07:27:16 PM »

Another conservative activist judge!

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/

This guy lets criminals off scott free...talk about soft on crime!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2005, 09:57:36 PM »

Quote

"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."

point?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2005, 11:03:35 PM »

Seems the point is fairly clear.

If the man were an athiest and the judge required him to go to a religious service, then that would be wrong. If the man were an athiest, he would have to go to jail. If he were a god fearing man, he would have to go to church and could live his life in relative freedom to the athiest.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2005, 11:09:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seems the point is fairly clear.

If the man were an athiest and the judge required him to go to a religious service, then that would be wrong. If the man were an athiest, he would have to go to jail. If he were a god fearing man, he would have to go to church and could live his life in relative freedom to the athiest.

I disagree. He's not sending them to "church" as he clearly states he's sending them to "worship services" yes symantics...I know. But the fact of the matter is he's not ORDERING anyone to go he's giving them a choice.

Choice or not I happen to agree. I have came around on my stance on drug offenders that jail does them no good, rehab works better. I don't see this at all as "congress respecting the establishment of religion"

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2005, 11:26:25 PM »

If the accused were an atheist, then the judge is requiring a worship service, which in this case is the antithesis to his belief.

Freedom to worship as one sees fit extends to the freedom to not worship, and is one of our founding principles.

Hangtime · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2005, 11:34:26 PM »

If I had a choice between tossing bubba's salad or goin to 'worship services...'

hmmmmmmmmmm.

Now, that's a tuff choice.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2005, 11:39:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If the accused were an atheist, then the judge is requiring a worship service, which in this case is the antithesis to his belief.

Freedom to worship as one sees fit extends to the freedom to not worship, and is one of our founding principles.

an athiest would have a "CHOICE" which is freedom. No one is forcing anyone to worship anything.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #7 on:** June 01, 2005, 12:12:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
an athiest would have a "CHOICE" which is freedom. No one is forcing anyone to worship anything.

Quote

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

"Pay your taxes or go to prison." I don't believe that is much of a choice.

"Go to church or go to prison" kinda the same thing.

lazs2 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 01, 2005, 08:23:28 AM »

You do realize that most judges in California send druggies/boozers to NA/AA these days?

They are spiritual progams with God at their center.

It is also funny in that the state requires that the sentanced get their attendance records signed by the "secretary" of the NA/AA group.

These groups main tennent is..... anonimity.... duh.. You can not say who was at a meeting.

Typical government silliness.. and a complete admission that government programs don't work so they need to go outside the government for programs that do.

lazs

crowMAW · « **Reply #9 on:** June 01, 2005, 08:54:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
I disagree. He's not sending them to "church" as he clearly states he's sending them to "worship services" yes symantics...I know. But the fact of the matter is he's not ORDERING anyone to go he's giving them a choice.

Choice or not I happen to agree. I have came around on my stance on drug offenders that jail does them no good, rehab works better. I don't see this at all as "congress respecting the establishment of religion"

So if the criminal had been convicted for marijuana possesion and decides to "worship" as a Rastafarian, then it would be OK?

lazs2 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 01, 2005, 08:56:55 AM »

But you are ok with druggies/drunks being sent to 12 step programs?

lazs

crowMAW · « **Reply #11 on:** June 01, 2005, 08:59:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
But you are ok with druggies/drunks being sent to 12 step programs?

No...I am OK with criminals going to jail and taking a 12step program or attending worship (if they choose to) while there.

lazs2 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 01, 2005, 09:01:25 AM »

Ok.. I am fine with that too but... by your defenition the entire judicial system in California is "activist" (I would not dissagree with that assesment).

So why bother with such a minor case as you point out? seems trivial in comparisson.

lazs

crowMAW · « **Reply #13 on:** June 01, 2005, 09:14:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. I am fine with that too but... by your defenition the entire judicial system in California is "activist" (I would not dissagree with that assesment).

So why bother with such a minor case as you point out? seems trivial in comparisson.

Well, I think that conservatives are definately painting that picture about California judges. However, I'm pointing out that conservatives are being just as "activist"...but conservatives seem to think that it is OK to be activist if god is involved. Which I find very hypocritical.

Perhaps this is a "minor" isolated case...but perhaps it isn't. I don't think either of us know how widespread this kind of behavior is among the thousands of conservative activist jusdges.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #14 on:** June 01, 2005, 09:55:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
Well, I think that conservatives are definately painting that picture about California judges. However, I'm pointing out that conservatives are being just as "activist"...but conservatives seem to think that it is OK to be activist if god is involved. Which I find very hypocritical.

Perhaps this is a "minor" isolated case...but perhaps it isn't. I don't think either of us know how widespread this kind of behavior is among the thousands of conservative activist jusdges.

I don't see how God is involved in this case? They have a choice.....not to go to church but some type of "worship service". Not sure what that is but I might change my mind if all the "approved places" were churches of some sort.

I also don't see how the tax thing fits in holden. These are convicted criminals. They no longer have a choice to go to jail but are getting one anyways.