A new alternative sentencing program offering first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice of a year of church attendance or jail time and fines is drawing fire from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as national attention, officials said Friday
I am glad to see that people other than me think that going to church is punishment.
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/0...nten.html#incart_mce
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Sentenced to a pew
September 22, 2011
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a strong letter of protest on behalf of a local complainant to Bay Minette, Ala. judges, regarding an off-the-wall proposal from Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland to have first-time offenders attend church services in lieu of incarceration. FFRF issued the letter to Municipal Judge Bayless Biles, State Circuit Court Judge James Reid and State District Court Judge Jody Bishop.
FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott's Sept. 22 letter notes that Rowland is working to implement a program called "Operation ROC: Restore Our Community," which would put offenders under the supervision of pastors and require them to attend church services for one year, in place of jail.
"We want to teach them that they're valuable, that God has a plan, God has a purpose. That they can be successful, that they possibly can become the person that God wants them to become," Pastor Bruce Hooks said in a Local 15 (Mobile, Ala.) news report. The report said 56 churches have already agreed to sponsor the program.
"This proposal is an egregious violation of the First Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the state cannot coerce citizens to participate in religious practices," noted Elliott. As the Supreme Court states in Lee v. Weisman, "It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which 'establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.'"
By instituting this program, Bay Minette would also be in violation of the Alabama Constitution Article 1, Elliott said. "... no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship."
"Even those persons in your community who have violated the law cannot be subject to violations of their right of conscience. They must always be free to choose wether or not to attend church without government interference," noted Elliot.
http://ffrf.org/news/releases/...m-inmates-in-church/
Where do they send the church going bunch that break the law? Who "supervises" the criminal preachers?
Depending on the congregation, it could easily be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
Where do they send the church going bunch that break the law? Who "supervises" the criminal preachers?
_________________________
Good question.
Hi all,
Just a suggestion. If you ask a person who is in trouble with the law to choose -- a year in jail -- or a year in church; which do you honestly believe they will choose, even an atheist?
In 1964, I worked for Ramo Wooldridge in Canoga Park, California. One of my young co-workers, about 20 years old, was drag racing on the streets, hit a car, and killed an elderly couple. The judge gave him a choice -- the Army or jail. Guess which he chose. You are right -- he went right into the Army. Just as I believe most will choose to spend Sundays in church -- instead of a year in jail.
Sorry to burst your atheist bubble -- but, reality reigns.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Sorry to burst your bubble but that's illegal and they won't get away with it so your point is moot. BTW you don't know what an atheist will do. You're always posting what people will do when you have no way of knowing. And like I ask above, where do they send the church crowd when they commit crimes?
I dont know if I agree with the law or not, but I dont understand where people are being forced to go to church. They could always stay in jail and serve their term.........
If they give them the church option only, instead of other choices such as community service, I guess some could argue they're being forced. The crimes couldn't have been that serious if they even have the once a week church option, so imo it would be illegal and against their rights to "force" them to go to church or jail.
All this proves (if anything), is that jail is worse than anything.
Not that it really makes a difference, but do the convicted get to choose which religion to take part in?
A new alternative sentencing program offering first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice of a year of church attendance or jail time and fines is drawing fire from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as national attention, officials said Friday
I am glad to see that people other than me think that going to church is punishment.
http://blog.al.com/live/2011/0...nten.html#incart_mce
its not for punishment! maybe just maybe it will help to get their life on track.GOD is the only one that can help offenders,if they want his help.
Does Anton LaVey's church count?
its not for punishment! maybe just maybe it will help to get their life on track.GOD is the only one that can help offenders,if they want his help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, your god is NOT the only one or thing that helps people get their life on track. Millions of people live good productive lives, never commit crimes, without your god. And millions of people that go to church and believe in your god commit crimes all the time.
It doesn't specify what kind of worship is acceptable.
From the way I read it, only an opinion, you are already going to get jail time for your crime. All this does is swap that time for a year in church, verified. It is voluntary, and makes no mention of a particular religion other than house of worship.
Very vague.
It doesn't specify what kind of worship is acceptable.
From the way I read it, only an opinion, you are already going to get jail time for your crime. All this does is swap that time for a year in church, verified. It is voluntary, and makes no mention of a particular religion other than house of worship.
Very vague.
Does that mean LaVey's church would count?
Perish the thought that potentially a person who is going the wrong direction in life may have a life altering and changing encounter with God/Christ. Change the heart and the Character follows as well as the greatest of possibility that the person will no longer commit the crime(s) that they were in Court for. I realize that our atheist and non-believers will not accept this possibility for they cannot conceive or and understand those Christians who testify that their lives were changed and transformed by God for they cannot believe there is a possibility of God.
Aside that thought many post about it being illegal is such hypocrisy. Check these very same people's post under the topic about the area in California threatening to fine and stop the Bible Studies and what they say there. Can anyone really think for a moment? Why is this NOT a violation of the First Amendment?
This is a local issue, a local judge and court it is not the federal Government which is governed by that First Amendment. You folks want to flaunt the first amendment when it gives you a way to censure Church and Religion but if it is to protect it then it's another thing. It is apparent that this Judge believes that Church/Religion can and will profoundly change these minor criminals whereas our Penal system has such a miserable failure rate.
The BIAS against religion is so profound that they will not entertain anything that might bring positive light to Church or present an example of where God changes lives. This is a local judge, most likely elected by local people there so why do you folks here feel such a mission to intervene in their judgment? If the locals are right to do what they are doing in California with the Bible Study people then the people of South Alabama are just as right do do what they choose for their area.
Nice try reverand gb but you lose all the way around. The two topics have nothing to do with each other. The law in Calif was not put into place to prohibit or suppress religion. This stunt is to PUSH religion on people. It's your opinion that ordering people to church is showing religion in a positive light, or presenting an example of your god changing lives for the better, which you just can't claim. In a lot of cases it changes people for the worse when they go "god crazy" like some of you. It is not a judges place to take it upon himself to change the law to suit HIS idea of justice. Would you feel the same if there were wiccan "churches" in the town and they chose to go there? Of course not. Now back to the Calif case, what if the people were having groups of 50 or more over twice a week to practice their wiccan religion? It boils down to one thing, either be fair to everyone or forget it. You don't get to dictate who should or shouldn't go to church.
