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.

 LoneLictor wrote:

 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?

I'm sure that if he changes religions he can change to that place of worship... the atheist part idk though..

removed my comments-apologies all.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Alright, Ouze, let's try this a different way then: the parents of the child who died were said in the article to hug the boy responsible-they obviously care for him, especially as the two boys were good friends. If the judge's decision is acceptable to them (and I think the articles make it pretty clear that it can REASONABLY be assumed they are okay with the decision, given their feelings for him), then who are you to disagree with his decision? Did you know the dead boy? Was he close to you? If not, and the parents are okay with the judge's ruling, then deal with it. Thanks for playing. I didn't miss the point at all, but I certainly wanted all you chuckle-heads to realize you were all ranting over a pointless argument. Most of this thread has been about whether or not the judge can assign him to do it and a lot of "what if's" over his religion of choice-most of this thread didn't even matter, and was a bunch of possible scenarios-none of which had any purpose other than children on the internet to fight.

Why do you keep coming into this thread if it's just a "pointless argument"?

Anyway, you keep throwing around insults, like calling the people in this thread "idiots comparing "pee-nozzles", "chuckleheads", and "children on the internet". If you want to speak with me, I'd have to ask you drop that nonsense. Beyond the self-evident fact that's no way to have a discussion, it's against Dakka's rules.

Secondly, you're operating under a false pretense; in that you identify the parents of the dead girl as the "victims". As the stepfather of a teenage girl who died in a similar car crash, I certainly understand why you and society at large would think that; but it's not legally accurate. When someone breaks the law and commits a criminal offense, the victim is society at large, not those specific people. The justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims, it works on behalf of justice. That's the difference between justice and vigilantism, it's why we style charges with "we the people". The wishes of the parent are totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they forgive him.

There are two separate major issues with this case (and maybe a third). The first is that many people feel he "escaped justice". Your postings make it clear you understand this element and disagree with it, fine. I won't attempt to sway you.

The other issue is that the judge is violating the first amendment in 2 pretty flagrant ways. These have already been explained well by Peregrine and Mannahin.

 Ouze wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Alright, Ouze, let's try this a different way then: the parents of the child who died were said in the article to hug the boy responsible-they obviously care for him, especially as the two boys were good friends. If the judge's decision is acceptable to them (and I think the articles make it pretty clear that it can REASONABLY be assumed they are okay with the decision, given their feelings for him), then who are you to disagree with his decision? Did you know the dead boy? Was he close to you? If not, and the parents are okay with the judge's ruling, then deal with it. Thanks for playing. I didn't miss the point at all, but I certainly wanted all you chuckle-heads to realize you were all ranting over a pointless argument. Most of this thread has been about whether or not the judge can assign him to do it and a lot of "what if's" over his religion of choice-most of this thread didn't even matter, and was a bunch of possible scenarios-none of which had any purpose other than children on the internet to fight.

Why do you keep coming into this thread if it's just a "pointless argument"?

Anyway, you keep throwing around insults, like calling the people in this thread "idiots comparing "pee-nozzles", "chuckleheads", and "children on the internet". If you want to speak with me, I'd have to ask you drop that nonsense. Beyond the self-evident fact that's no way to have a discussion, it's against Dakka's rules.

Secondly, you're operating under a false pretense; in that you identify the parents of the dead girl as the "victims". As the stepfather of a teenage girl who died in a similar car crash, I certainly understand why you and society at large would think that; but it's not legally accurate. When someone breaks the law and commits a criminal offense, the victim is society at large, not those specific people. The justice system doesn't work on behalf of victims, it works on behalf of justice. That's the difference between justice and vigilantism, it's why we style charges with "we the people". The wishes of the parent are totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they forgive him.

There are two separate major issues with this case (and maybe a third). The first is that many people feel he "escaped justice". Your postings make it clear you understand this element and disagree with it, fine. I won't attempt to sway you.

The other issue is that the judge is violating the first amendment in 2 pretty flagrant ways. These have already been explained well by Peregrine and Mannahin.

Spoiler:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I still don't think it's an appropriate use of governmental authority, to enforce attendance of any church. In fact I think a pretty flagrant violation of what in the founders' time they used to call "Freedom of Conscience".

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I offer my condolences for your family's loss. I do feel it is the family's loss though, as you say-regardless of what the law states. Parents, friends and other family members are the ones who have lost here, but with the parents' acceptance and agreement to the judge's decision, I feel the verdict is acceptable. Now, if the parents were upset and didn't agree with the judge's stance, I'd be very against the idea of "only" getting church service as a punishment. For me, it all comes down to the parents' acceptance. They agree? He gets an appropriate sentence. They disagree? Absolutely not, be harsher. Actually, I'll edit out my previous statements, as I'm in a bit of a foul mood today (sick as hell) and it was unnecessarily. I do have issues with people thinking they know better than the deceased's parents, but it was the wrong way to go about it. My apologies.

 Ratbarf wrote:
It did count those, and I would say that they are just as worthwhile as secular charities.

That really, really depends on the church in question. Often times you'll see the money move almost exclusively into maintenance and staff, and on various productions put on by the church (Christmas and Easter shows etc). Other times the money will get spent on sending various young adults on the church off on missionary work, which in turn can vary greatly in the amount of actual humanitarian work done.

Then there are other groups that do incredible amounts of good work, way beyond just the money donated because of the amount of volunteer work done by members of the church.


Point being, you can't just take donations to the church as equal to non-charitable donations. It's a lot more complicated than that, especially when non-church donations actually decline among religious people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Because that term originally referred to prisons built by churches, and used to punish those who had acted specifically against the Church.