LOL that "separation of church and state"

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/22/serve-time-jailor-church-ar-2450720/



Right. I'm just waiting for the inevitable ACLU suit.

Edited to add: what do you guys think of this new program? Do you think it's reasonable, or a violation of the First Amendment?

I don't think it violates the First Amendment though I just skimmed it.

I think for misdemenor offenders it's not going to rehabilitate them as much as higher offenders though they wouldn't need it since they have church in jail. They're going to just see it as a quick out and probably not go because the church they go to might not be right for them though no church might be right for them.

The scheme would sound better for convicts that are just getting out of jail to maybe give them some thing to hold on to till they get used to being on the out side.

Can i pick a satanic church?

what about agnostic/athiest?

Don't we have things like mandatory community service for minor crimes?

Exactly...if the church of your choice isn't one of the churches joining the program, or if you have no religion and do not want to be forced to go to church, you're SOL. Off to jail with you! Or you get fined!

It's technically not illegal since the phrase "separation of church and state" is never stated in the constitution. The phrase has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson (among others) and has been quoted by the supreme court as the basis of their decision.

Regardless, I personally don't approve of the state using a religious organization as a method of "punishment". I can see a pastor sabotaging people (especially Atheists) who don't convert to their faith by stating the person never showed up or violated other rules of the agreement.

Soooo what if you aren't Christian? Oh wait that means you're either Jewish or a terrorist so you're going to get fined or jailed respectively.



Sure it doesn't violate the 1st amendment since no one will be punished for being not-Christian. It would be under the "eligibility" requirements of the program like how a Catholic school can exist and only accept Catholic students without violating the 1st amendment. In this case the "Catholic school" is the school with really good test scores and new textbooks and cool stuff and the alternative is the "school" that's completely run down and the community acts like it doesn't exist.

I'm going to find this REALLY funny when someone commits some silly crime and gets into this program then does some other crime. Now imagine a handful of people like that. "The Church is a breeding ground for criminals!"

EDIT: I would imagine for "eligibility" you would have to prove you are Christian. Annnnnnd cue corrupted pastors. But seriously though how do you prove your religion if you're not outwardly pious or a member of the church?

100th post!

Since i am a godless atheist, i obviously have no morals. it would be no problem for me to lie and pay lip service while sitting through church once a week.

America has never been a secular society tbh.

I don't think the problem is seperation of church and state. I think the problem would be its effectiveness as a rehabilitation.

Unless the person in question has to be involved beyond just attending service, this isn't a very good rehabilitation method.

While Separation of Church and State may not be explicitly written in our Constitution, but it is enforced by Case Law and thus makes it illegal. By the separation, government should repress nor support any religion within its laws. This law automatically forces an option involving Christianity with churches as opposed to Jewish Synagogues, Buddhist Temples, or... home imprisonment for the non-religious. I'm pretty sure that any federal court that hears this case would automatically label this as unconstitutional under case law EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) and the Supreme Court would agree.

Personally, I'm glad they made this law. This allows law suits to make more case laws that bans the alignment of religion to government, which has been getting a tad too smitten lately.

I think that the judge is slimey for trying to use technicalities to get around the law. I would have him jailed for violation of civil rights. What crime did he commite, I'm curious? The law needs to stay away from the church, period! He is basically using it as a punishment, what does that say about the church. I think church is boring and it's like a punishment when I go, but I go of my own free will. If someone tried to force me then I'd tell them to get fucked up the ass with a rusty poll. Imagine how someone who doesn't go to church at all would feel. It's unconstitutional and it's not right!

If the volunteer work were not affiliated with a religion, I'd approve.

But forcing religion on someone (even if they are of that affiliation) as punishment? Pretty sure that's unlawful.

Please tell me this is a joke, please tell me this is some late April Fools prank. Isn't there a very clear writing in the 1st Amendment where it seperates Religion from Government? Gah! The stupidity of the religous states and their incessant need to incorporate religion into their politics baffles me.

It's not forcing them at any point and it's not government funded so QQ Moar.

No where in the bill of rights or Constitution is there a Separation of church and state. The whole idea of a elected body without a king or permeate ruler is the point of one of the reasons the forefather created a government without the god king ideals of English Church of England aka Anglican Communion. The Separation of church and state is just the fact that the president isn't the head of a region outside of the whole political party system that is the down fall of the state.

Even if it didn't violate the First Amendment (which it DOES, according to the interpretations of the courts that Skymir mentioned earlier), it also violates Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution, which states that “no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship.”

The government has no business promoting church attendance. Especially not as an alternative to jail.

Oh this tired old canard. Listen, while I disagree with the punishment(I in no way feel religion has any positive effect to rehabilitating criminals, misdemeanors or otherwise), and I feel if it IS tax supported, it should in fact not be signed purely off of that basis alone, I feel this entire idea of “Separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution!” needs to be addressed. The fact of the matter is, if you ask any constitutional scholar where the idea of separation of church and state can be derived from the constitution, they’ll immediately point you to the First Amendment and Article III. The MOST you can say, is that semantically, the exact words “Separation of church and state” aren’t in the constitution, however, the principal, the concept, and the practice of it is outlined specifically in the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting any religion. This has been heavily accepted to not only mean that no religion may be preferred over another, but that no religion is just as respected as any religion. Congress shall make no law establishing a religious test to enter office(which several states have decided to fuck around and do anyhow). This is extremely simple; the founding fathers were well known to express that they are of the volition that the BEST course of action for government concerning religion is as follows : Complete Neutrality. This is expressed in the constitution, this is expressed by many founding fathers. This silly little game where people think they know something secret when they go, “Huh uh! It was Thomas Jefferson in his letters! The Constitution doesn’t say it!” needs to stop.

There's around 7500 people in Bay Minette, the town most likely has a small, 6-10 cell jail. The crimes committed there are probably petty or small-time, maybe a murder or robbery every once in a while. I can imagine both the town and federal government wouldn't want to fork over a few thousand in cash just to ship a couple of petty criminals elsewhere. I also doubt they would be giving this option to murderers, drug-dealers and so on. Why Church as the only option? This is Alabama we're talking about here, if I remember correctly around 80% of their population is Christian, around 5% are non-religious. It's a good move by the town, it saves them money and improves the current town council's image with it's populace.

Besides, what's not to like? You get to eat free food, drink free wine and the fairytale comes with it's own storyteller who likes to include the audience!

I stated that the words are not in the constitution because you'd be surprised how many people actually think those exact words are in the document. Other than that, I have no comment since your entire post is just a reiteration of my own views.

Edit: Canard huh? Somebody used their thesaurus.