Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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!
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
If I had a choice between tossing bubba's salad or goin to 'worship services...'
hmmmmmmmmmm.
Now, that's a tuff choice.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
an athiest would have a "CHOICE" which is freedom. No one is forcing anyone to worship anything.
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
But you are ok with druggies/drunks being sent to 12 step programs?
lazs
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
If I had a choice between tossing bubba's salad or goin to 'worship services...'
hmmmmmmmmmm.
Now, that's a tuff choice.
And along comes Mr. Pragmatic to ruin all the philosphical phun.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
Fine:
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 worship is involved.
Better?
BTW...what about my question:
"So if the criminal had been convicted for marijuana possesion and decides to "worship" as a Rastafarian, then it would be OK?"
-
If I had a choice between tossing bubba's salad or goin to 'worship services...'
hmmmmmmmmmm.
Now, that's a tuff choice.
I was given a similar choice in basic training on Sunday mornings: Go to church or extra clean up in the barracks area. I went to church a couple of times, then I pretended to go to church and found a "safe" place to sleep for most of the morning. Adapt and overcome (until some a hole looking for brownie points ratted me out. Fortunately, my Drill Sergeants though being a snitch was worse than my taking a nap here or there. I got 15 minutes of extra duty, maybe 20 push ups and rat boy didn't get that PFC was pining for :) I had to go back to the clean up after that though.)
Charon
-
As long as the judge doesn't define what 'worship service' the offender must attend it would be ok for me. It would be great to say that the judge ordered me to wear my sheepskin chaps and devilish horns to a gathering of like minded godless heathens.
Check my sigline for more insight to my thoughts about religion :)
-
Hello All,
I've ended up doing a lot of jail visits and of late have sat in on a few sentencing hearings. At least in our area, the majority of those arrested for drug possession (outside of the military) cut a deal with the DA for probation and Rehab. I sat in on a sentencing the other day where a repeat offender with prior convictions for prostitution, Heroin and Coke use who had been picked up for fighting over money for drugs with a guy in a wheelchair, plead guilty and was sentenced to 6 months probation and mandatory attendance at a local AA style rehab clinic. This practice is not unusual at all. Judges are bending over backwards not to add "non-violent" offenders to the already burgeoning prison population and are flailing around for any alternatives to doing so.
A few things to consider:
1) Hardly anyone "kicks" a serious drug addiction in prison. Drugs are plentiful behind bars and you are literally surrounded by people eager to deal to you. Added to that you generally have nothing better to do, and no compelling reason not to.
2) Most public rehab programs use some variation of the AA methodology which depends on the addict praying and depending upon a "higher power." Therefore, almost all of the mandated "secular" rehab programs have a religious or spiritual dimension. So folks, the courts have been mandating religious involvement for addicts for years.
Along those lines, studies have found that for those who have hit rock bottom in their addictions, a purely psychological approach is generally useless. "Look at what you are doing to yourself" doesn't resonate at that point, and a worldview of "Well after all you are just a more highly developed version of pondscum in the brief interstasis between nothingness and death" doesn't exactly provide much incentive for not frying one's brain.
3) The most effective drug rehab programs with the lowest recidivism rates also tend to be the most self-consciously evangelical. They emphasize the necessary lifestyle, worldview and above all heart changes without which addicts return to their prior lives very quickly. Of all the drug programs I have had contact with, the most effective is a self-consciously Christian program called "Teen Challenge" and the least effective is a state detox program. Well actually, the least effective is just putting them in jail. I've never seen that even dry them out.
- SEAGOON
-
crow... I find it particularly hypocritical that liberal far left judges and those like yourself who support them are sending every single druggie/drunk as a matter of judicial policy to... A program with it's center being God.
It allways the lefties not the conservatives that interpret any whisper of the "God" as being against "the seperation of church and state" would seem to me that the lefties are the worse hypocrites and with the more far reaching policy in this case.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crow... I find it particularly hypocritical that liberal far left judges and those like yourself who support them are sending every single druggie/drunk as a matter of judicial policy to... A program with it's center being God.
Actually, I don't support those decisions either...I want to see criminals get jail time.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Actually, I don't support those decisions either...I want to see criminals get jail time.
CrowMAW,
Just curious, what exactly is the point of putting drug addicts in jail for a few months? When:
A) They don't kick the habit
B) They instantly become virtually unemployable because of the felony conviction with jail time on their record
C) Their time in Criminal U just forges bad connections and equips them for harder crime when they get out, which they'll turn to because they still have a habit to support and no way to legitimately support it.
D) They'll be back again, and again, and again, until they either die or do something so serious that no DA will cut them a deal?
The above is really a better solution than sending them to a faith based rehab center? How much must we be willing to sacrifice on the altar of enforced secular humanism?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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.
C'mon Gunny, If you go to a 'worship service' what are you worshipping? My guess is that a Cincinatti Reds game would not qualify, but maybe going to some sort of religious service where they talk about 'God'? That is how God is involved in this case.
You said, "They no longer have a choice to go to jail..." That is what the judge gave them... a choice... "do this or go to jail"
Just like you paying taxes. Pay tax or go to jail. As a citizen, you have that choice.
I do not see how it could be more clear.
-
As much as they can annoy me with their oppressive beliefs, 'born agains' are often former individuals who were on the wrong side of the law or, at the very least, morally bankrupt towards their own well-being or their families. Church seems to work for them and if these other individuals don't care to go, they can always just do the jailtime.
Then again, dealing with some of the more vocal born agains is akin to jailtime, maybe even cruel and unusual punishment. :)
Suffice to say, I'm not in favor of using church in place of punishment, but I can understand what the judge was trying to accomplish.
-
Seagoon, I'm too tired to look at your posts in the context of this thread or whatever (didn't read 'em all)... but I just wanted to say that you were bang-on dead accurate in everything you said in them. Not even a flag went up.
-
well... my take on it is that faith based rehabs like AA are being ruined by the judicial system.
Forceing people to go is against everything that makes AA work. It also ruins the program for those who want to be there and could have otherwise recovered. Anything government touches they muck up... it is a shame about AA.
As for jail not doing addicts any good... that is exactly correct but...
they can't smash the window on your car and do $1500 damage using a crowbar to get your radio out of the dash if they are in jail and... There is probly some minor deterent effect to automatic jail time.
The guys who never stole for their habit won't be that kind of criminal when they get out. Jail and prison are like drugs in that respect... they don't make you into anything you wouldn't nmormaly be... they just enhance your predelictions.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
C'mon Gunny, If you go to a 'worship service' what are you worshipping? My guess is that a Cincinatti Reds game would not qualify, but maybe going to some sort of religious service where they talk about 'God'? That is how God is involved in this case.
You said, "They no longer have a choice to go to jail..." That is what the judge gave them... a choice... "do this or go to jail"
Just like you paying taxes. Pay tax or go to jail. As a citizen, you have that choice.
I do not see how it could be more clear.
Yes but the choices you are refferring to is the choice to commit the crime. In this case the offender has allready commited a crime.....IE he made his choice allready. This judge is at least giving them a second chance. If an athiest is that apalled by the "option" they can go to jail instead.....wich is were they would be going normally.....I say no harm no foul.