Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the kids who go to Church tend to not drink as much.

Citation please.


Anyway, this is not a new issue. There have already been multiple appeals launched in just about every state against the practice of sentencing offenders to AA, which is a Christian organisation that requires a belief in God as part of its 12-step (which has never been found to work any better)

I concur on citation too...

The Catholics at least don't shy away from alcohol during church functions...

It's bloody required if you're Irish Catholic in the United States, Father Flannigan sure did love a pint at the bar across from St. Patricks after mass.

No, I'm not kidding. With any of that. I wish to the goddess I was.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

What are you doing? You know, because it is very fething obvious to everyone, that the issue is not having to be somewhere once a week, but where that weekly attendance is that is the issue.

But you're pretending to be oblivious of that, for reasons that none of us either know or care about. So stop it.

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

What are you doing?

I'm making a statement without having to resort to swearing or telling people to "stop" to get my point across.
It's actually rather fun.

You know, because it is very fething obvious to everyone, that the issue is not having to be somewhere once a week, but where that weekly attendance is that is the issue.
But you're pretending to be oblivious of that, for reasons that none of us either know or care about. So stop it.

I'm not oblivious to anything, Sebster.

I'm making a statement here. This is alternative sentencing at work. Whether it's community service or being told to attend church, there's no real difference beyond the "outrage" suffered by people who think that church is simply a religious affair.

This case is a perfect example of intermediate sanctions. I suggest you look up "The Sentencing Project" based in Washington, D.C. for an example of how this is playing out.

Whether it's community service or being told to attend church, there's no real difference beyond the "outrage" suffered by people who think that church is simply a religious affair.

You don't see a difference between community service and church attendance, from the perspective of the First Amendment?

You don't think a government official mandating church attendance on penalty of imprisonment is in any way an issue?

 Mannahnin wrote:

Whether it's community service or being told to attend church, there's no real difference beyond the "outrage" suffered by people who think that church is simply a religious affair.

You don't see a difference between community service and church attendance, from the perspective of the First Amendment?

Considering that a common form of community service is church sponsored soup kitchens/community outreach programs, I really do not.

You don't think a government official mandating church attendance on penalty of imprisonment is in any way an issue?

If it were just "going to church or jail!"--I'd have an issue.

Considering it's part of an overarching program? Nah.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that a common form of community service is church sponsored soup kitchens/community outreach programs, I really do not.

There are perfectly good secular community service projects (and if there aren't, there should be). This is government endorsement of religion, plain and simple.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that a common form of community service is church sponsored soup kitchens/community outreach programs, I really do not.

There are perfectly good secular community service projects (and if there aren't, there should be).

Being sponsored by a religious organization does not necessarily mean the projects themselves are religious in nature.

This is government endorsement of religion, plain and simple.

What religion?

He was given a choice of churches/places of worship to attend to. He and his lawyer can challenge the details of the judgement, but it cannot be done if he violates the conditions of the sentencing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm making a statement without having to resort to swearing or telling people to "stop" to get my point across.
It's actually rather fun.

No, you're being disingenuous, and it's actually rather boring.

I'm not oblivious to anything, Sebster.

I know you're not. I refuse to believe anyone could be oblivious to the idea that it is not the time consumed, but the requirement to attend church. As such, in ignoring that element of the complaint, you were being disingenuous.

So, once again, stop doing that. It's boring.

I'm making a statement here. This is alternative sentencing at work. Whether it's community service or being told to attend church, there's no real difference beyond the "outrage" suffered by people who think that church is simply a religious affair.

Uh huh. And your statement includes the shitballs crazypants nonsense that people might consider attendance at a church sermon something other than a religious experience. Which makes it boring, disingenuous nonsense, that I will, once again, ask you stop doing.

Church for 10 years? He might be a Christian now, what if he isn't in a few years, what then? Has to keep going week after week, year after year?

This is one of the most incorrect things I have ever read.

Citation please.

I concur on citation too...

The Catholics at least don't shy away from alcohol during church functions...

The Church kids I hang out/study the bible with are Dutch Reform for the most part. Out of a group of about 300 I can count all of the imbibers of alcohol on two hands.

They were planning a party this one time so I asked if it was going to be B.Y.O.B., I got looked at like I had just declared my sexual love for small children......

 Kanluwen wrote:
Being sponsored by a religious organization does not necessarily mean the projects themselves are religious in nature.

Except that:

1) That's a very fine line to deal with, and a nonexistent one in many cases. If the church is doing anything religious in this project ("feed the poor for god", group prayer, etc) it is government endorsement of religion.

2) The requirement is that he attends church, not that he participates in community service which includes options which are sponsored by religious organizations. Again, government endorsement of religion.

What religion?

He was given a choice of churches/places of worship to attend to. He and his lawyer can challenge the details of the judgement, but it cannot be done if he violates the conditions of the sentencing.

1) Let's be honest here, this "choice" means "a Christian church of your choice". The court can put up a pretense of any religion being acceptable (as long as they meet weekly), but we all know it's a case of "see you in church on sunday, or in jail on monday".

2) It's endorsement of religion at all. Whether or not it's technically an endorsement of a specific religion, it's certainly an endorsement of participating in a religion at all and a textbook violation of separation of church and state. He might be fine with that now, but if he later becomes an atheist (or simply less interested in organized religion) he will have to choose between attending a church he does not wish to be a part of or violating the terms of his alternative sentence and going to prison.

Being sponsored by a religious organization does not necessarily mean the projects themselves are religious in nature.

This is very true, the majority of the ones people I know work at arn't religiously centered, but they are staffed by Church goers.

Uh huh. And your statement includes the shitballs crazypants nonsense that people might consider attendance at a church sermon something other than a religious experience. Which makes it boring, disingenuous nonsense, that I will, once again, ask you stop doing.

Actually that is entirely possible. From what I've gathered he said he must attend a Church of his choosing once a week, he didn't say that he had to be there for Mass or Scripture. Most Churches have a variety of functions that go on throughout the week in the building. Youth groups, AA meetings, Free Meals, in my church there's badminton. They're all church related functions, but you don't get a lot of scriptural readings during most of them. Youth groups vary by church.

On another note, as was mentioned before, it's likely that if the teen hadn't been a Christian he would have been given the commandment to his own religious institution, or simply a certain amount of extra community hours. Or possibly Philosophy lectures on Ethics if he was athiest.

There are perfectly good secular community service projects (and if there aren't, there should be).

Should be? Possibly, are there? Usually not nearly as many.

A study was done in Canada a few years back, turns out that those people who regularly attend a religious function each week give 70 percent more to charity than those who did not. IIRC it also said that self described athiests donated the least out of the groups polled. Take that as you will.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Actually that is entirely possible. From what I've gathered he said he must attend a Church of his choosing once a week, he didn't say that he had to be there for Mass or Scripture. Most Churches have a variety of functions that go on throughout the week in the building. Youth groups, AA meetings, Free Meals, in my church there's badminton. They're all church related functions, but you don't get a lot of scriptural readings during most of them. Youth groups vary by church.

That's a rather creative interpretation of the situation. And a generous one. I seriously doubt that the intent here was to attend the church badminton league, and I doubt that it would be accepted. Let's stop making excuses here, the expectation is that "church once a week" means going for religious services.

On another note, as was mentioned before, it's likely that if the teen hadn't been a Christian he would have been given the commandment to his own religious institution, or simply a certain amount of extra community hours. Or possibly Philosophy lectures on Ethics if he was athiest.

Sure he would. Let's just pretend that all religions are treated equally, and a satanist would be ordered to attend appropriate religious services. Somehow though, I don't find that a very convincing theory...

A study was done in Canada a few years back, turns out that those people who regularly attend a religious function each week give 70 percent more to charity than those who did not. IIRC it also said that self described athiests donated the least out of the groups polled. Take that as you will.

Did this study count giving to the church itself as a donation? For example, is money in the "build us a bigger church" or "send bibles to a poor country" fund considered "charity"? If it is, that means the numbers are massively inflated, and a comparison of actual charity contributions would be a lot closer.

 Ratbarf wrote:
A study was done in Canada a few years back, turns out that those people who regularly attend a religious function each week give 70 percent more to charity than those who did not. IIRC it also said that self described athiests donated the least out of the groups polled. Take that as you will.

Those kinds of studies are done all the time. The results are pretty consistent and not quite what you say they are. Here's one from the Chronicle of Philanthropy - http://philanthropy.com/section/How-America-Gives/621/. That's got a fairly annoying interactive flash thingy going on, but there's a useful summary here http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/08/religious-states-donate-more-charity-than-secular-states.html.

There's two key points to be made;

The report concludes that donors in the most generous region, the South, "give roughly 5.2 percent of their discretionary income to charity—both to religious and to secular groups—compared with donors in the Northeast, who give 4.0 percent."

However...

"the generosity ranking changes when religion is taken out of the picture. People in the Northeast give the most, providing 1.4 percent of their discretionary income to secular charities, compared with those in the South, who give 0.9 percent."

So they're more likely to give to their local church that non-church attendees, but give less of their income to secular charities than secular people. Take that as you will

Did this study count giving to the church itself as a donation? For example, is money in the "build us a bigger church" or "send bibles to a poor country" fund considered "charity"? If it is, that means the numbers are massively inflated, and a comparison of actual charity contributions would be a lot closer.

It did count those, and I would say that they are just as worthwhile as secular charities. Churches actually do a very large amount of philanthropist works around the world, they get the money to do that through those weekly donations. Sure some of the money goes to keeping the roof from leaking and making sure the Hymnaries aren't falling apart, but at least in my Church the majority of the money that is collected ends up in missionary services, (That's just the branch it's called, pretty much a nationwide treasury.) , where more is spent on charitable works than on upkeep. I think you would also find that the majority of people who go oversees to help the poor or sick are also church affiliated. I don't know anyone who has gone to a third world country to volunteer that didn't do it through a church run mission or religious charity.

Sure he would. Let's just pretend that all religions are treated equally, and a satanist would be ordered to attend appropriate religious services. Somehow though, I don't find that a very convincing theory...

I said it would likely have been an either or kind of thing if you had understood what I wrote. Either religious services, or more community hours, I highly doubt the judge would force a jew to go to church, and I think a Satanist would just get extra community hours.

If you're going to respond to what I write please read what I write, not what you want to see.

Laaaaaaaaame.

And pointless. He's already going to church, even if he wasn't, starting to go to church would do two parts of bugger all, besides maybe make him a little more misogynistic and homophobic.

Son, I am disappoint.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Being sponsored by a religious organization does not necessarily mean the projects themselves are religious in nature.

This is very true, the majority of the ones people I know work at arn't religiously centered, but they are staffed by Church goers.

Uh huh. And your statement includes the shitballs crazypants nonsense that people might consider attendance at a church sermon something other than a religious experience. Which makes it boring, disingenuous nonsense, that I will, once again, ask you stop doing.

Actually that is entirely possible. From what I've gathered he said he must attend a Church of his choosing once a week, he didn't say that he had to be there for Mass or Scripture. Most Churches have a variety of functions that go on throughout the week in the building. Youth groups, AA meetings, Free Meals, in my church there's badminton. They're all church related functions, but you don't get a lot of scriptural readings during most of them. Youth groups vary by church.

On another note, as was mentioned before, it's likely that if the teen hadn't been a Christian he would have been given the commandment to his own religious institution, or simply a certain amount of extra community hours. Or possibly Philosophy lectures on Ethics if he was athiest.

There are perfectly good secular community service projects (and if there aren't, there should be).

Should be? Possibly, are there? Usually not nearly as many.

A study was done in Canada a few years back, turns out that those people who regularly attend a religious function each week give 70 percent more to charity than those who did not. IIRC it also said that self described athiests donated the least out of the groups polled. Take that as you will.

Considering that churches are charities and take up a collection this is not difficult to explain.

Ratbarf wrote:

This is one of the most incorrect things I have ever read.

Citation please.

I concur on citation too...

The Catholics at least don't shy away from alcohol during church functions...

The Church kids I hang out/study the bible with are Dutch Reform for the most part. Out of a group of about 300 I can count all of the imbibers of alcohol on two hands.

They were planning a party this one time so I asked if it was going to be B.Y.O.B., I got looked at like I had just declared my sexual love for small children......

So, because you know this one group of kids who went to church and did not drink, now all kids who attend church are less likely to drink than normal kids?

Because, I had a different setup when I was going through high school. Most of the kids who went to church on Sunday had a hangover, where I never went to church and I did not start drinking until after High School. So taking my findings and running them through your logic, kids are more likely to drink if they go to church.

Kanluwen wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

What are you doing?

I'm making a statement without having to resort to swearing or telling people to "stop" to get my point across.
It's actually rather fun.

You know, because it is very fething obvious to everyone, that the issue is not having to be somewhere once a week, but where that weekly attendance is that is the issue.
But you're pretending to be oblivious of that, for reasons that none of us either know or care about. So stop it.

I'm not oblivious to anything, Sebster.

I'm making a statement here. This is alternative sentencing at work. Whether it's community service or being told to attend church, there's no real difference beyond the "outrage" suffered by people who think that church is simply a religious affair.

This case is a perfect example of intermediate sanctions. I suggest you look up "The Sentencing Project" based in Washington, D.C. for an example of how this is playing out.

There is a difference, what good is he giving back to the community by going to church as opposed to helping clean up a park or helping teach kids to read?

You know, something that will actually help the community.

Since it's a drinking issue, wouldn't it have made more sense to sentence him to converting to Islam & attending a mosque? iirc, that religion has prohibitions against drinking a christian church isn't going to help enforce that. This ruling seems kind of sloppy to me.

The problem here is clearly that alcohol is involved in a minor, who was driving during a time he shouldn't be driving.

But by the gods this is in no way a church issue. The only connection is alcoholic beverages are served in some churches.

removing my comments here-apologies all.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...let me get this straight. The guy is court-ordered to attend a church of his choice as part of the punishment for crime, which is something he already does, and a bunch of you guys are up in arms over how wrong it is? "Hey, that thing you're doing? I order you to keep doing it." "No, that's not fair! I was going to anyway!"

You guys are classic. Keep it up.

I know a lot of you will actually respond "That's not what we're arguing here, quit pretending to miss the point", but that really is the underlying argument-some of you are mad that he's ordered to go to church when he is already going. Get over it. It doesn't matter if he has a different religion, he has a CHOICE of what church he goes to-Baptist, Scientology, Methodist, Judaism, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. Grow up, and quit measuring your piss-nozzles . Had he no options of where to go, due to being an atheist or any other religion that wasn't promoted in the area, I'm sure the sentencing would have been different.

I'm actually arguing for capital punishment on the courthouse steps as a warning to others.

 Frazzled wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...let me get this straight. The guy is court-ordered to attend a church of his choice as part of the punishment for crime, which is something he already does, and a bunch of you guys are up in arms over how wrong it is? "Hey, that thing you're doing? I order you to keep doing it." "No, that's not fair! I was going to anyway!"

You guys are classic. Keep it up.

I know a lot of you will actually respond "That's not what we're arguing here, quit pretending to miss the point", but that really is the underlying argument-some of you are mad that he's ordered to go to church when he is already going. Get over it. It doesn't matter if he has a different religion, he has a CHOICE of what church he goes to-Baptist, Scientology, Methodist, Judaism, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. Grow up, and quit measuring your piss-nozzles . Had he no options of where to go, due to being an atheist or any other religion that wasn't promoted in the area, I'm sure the sentencing would have been different.

I'm actually arguing for capital punishment on the courthouse steps as a warning to others.

Not you Frazzled, you aren't on my 'idiot list', no worries.

Their is a reason prisons were originally called Penitentiaries (Penance).

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...let me get this straight. The guy is court-ordered to attend a church of his choice as part of the punishment for crime, which is something he already does, and a bunch of you guys are up in arms over how wrong it is? "Hey, that thing you're doing? I order you to keep doing it." "No, that's not fair! I was going to anyway!"

You guys are classic. Keep it up.

I know a lot of you will actually respond "That's not what we're arguing here, quit pretending to miss the point", but that really is the underlying argument-some of you are mad that he's ordered to go to church when he is already going. Get over it. It doesn't matter if he has a different religion, he has a CHOICE of what church he goes to-Baptist, Scientology, Methodist, Judaism, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. Grow up, and quit measuring your piss-nozzles . Had he no options of where to go, due to being an atheist or any other religion that wasn't promoted in the area, I'm sure the sentencing would have been different.

I'm not going to respond to you to "quit pretending to miss the point", because I think it's pretty clear you actually did.

dkellyj wrote:
Their is a reason prisons were originally called Penitentiaries (Penance).

This could be the best one... no?
http://cavemancircus.com/2012/11/19/the-worlds-most-humane-prison-norways-halden-prison/

wait

separation of church and state

just appeal, no way a higher court would make you go to church, jail maybe, but not church

Who do I have to kill to get into there?

 Ouze wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...let me get this straight. The guy is court-ordered to attend a church of his choice as part of the punishment for crime, which is something he already does, and a bunch of you guys are up in arms over how wrong it is? "Hey, that thing you're doing? I order you to keep doing it." "No, that's not fair! I was going to anyway!"

You guys are classic. Keep it up.

I know a lot of you will actually respond "That's not what we're arguing here, quit pretending to miss the point", but that really is the underlying argument-some of you are mad that he's ordered to go to church when he is already going. Get over it. It doesn't matter if he has a different religion, he has a CHOICE of what church he goes to-Baptist, Scientology, Methodist, Judaism, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. Grow up, and quit measuring your piss-nozzles . Had he no options of where to go, due to being an atheist or any other religion that wasn't promoted in the area, I'm sure the sentencing would have been different.

I'm not going to respond to you to "quit pretending to miss the point", because I think it's pretty clear you actually did.

Exalted Ouze.

So, a kid is told to go to church on the threat of imprisonment. And people think this is fine, because he already went to church.

What if he didn't? Or what if he changes his mind in the next 10 years? Like, "Hey, I'm an atheist now!" or "Hey, I worship Jim Jones now!" Then what?

 DIDM wrote:
wait

separation of church and state

just appeal, no way a higher court would make you go to church, jail maybe, but not church

He should appeal. Then the judge could sentence him to the maximum amount of possible time. Everyone wins!